Allowed

Mr. Aboobaker Siddik Talapady v. Dr. Narendra J Shetty

Karnataka HC11 Oct 2022MFA/187/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against dismissal of compensation claim. High Court held that discrepancies in vehicle details and failure to examine key witnesses warranted remand to Tribunal for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Set aside judgment/award; remand to Tribunal for fresh consideration; liberty to adduce additional evidence.

Mr. Aboobaker Siddik Talapady Vs Dr. Narendra J Shetty — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶6

MFA No.187 OF 2021(MV)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

MR. ABOOBAKER SIDDIK TALAPADY @ABOOBACKER SIDDIQUE S/O K ABDULKHADAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT 1-240/2, AMAN MANZIL NEAR PETROL PUMP TALAPADY, MANGALURU DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.

¶9

...APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI.HARISH BABU K N., ADV.)

¶11

AND

¶12

1 . DR. NARENDRA J SHETTY S/O JAGANNATHA N SHETTY MAJOR R/AT NO. 502, FANTASY APARTMENTS K R ROAD, KARANGALPADY MANGALURU-575033 DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.

¶13

¶14

2 . ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD ICICI LOMBARD HOUSE 414, VEER SAVARKAR MARG NEAR SIDDHI VINAYAKA TEMPLE PRABHADEVI, MUMBAI

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI.B.PRADEEP, ADV. FOR R2: NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DATED: 11.10.2022)

¶17

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.07.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.322/2018 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACTII, MANGALURU D.K, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

¶18

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been filed by the claimant being aggrieved

¶21

¶22

by the judgment dated 16.7.2019 passed by MACT, Mangaluru (DK) in MVC 322/2018.

¶23

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

¶24

briefly stated are that on 13.11.2015 when the claimant was driving his car bearing registration No.KA-14-N-4013 and proceeding from Mangalore towards Talapady, near Sharada Chicken Mutton Centre, Ekkuru, Mangaluru, at that time, another car bearing registration No.KA-53-MB-6969 being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the vehicle of the claimant. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.

¶25

The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation. It was pleaded that he spent huge amount towards medical

¶26

¶27

expenses, conveyance, etc. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred purely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶28

On service of notice, the respondents appeared through counsel and filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied.

¶29

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues, recorded the evidence and thereafter dismissed the claim petition. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.

¶30

The learned counsel for the claimant has contended that the claim petition is dismissed on the ground that there is discrepancy in the mention of the vehicle number and place of accident in the pleadings and police records. In the FIR, the vehicle number is

¶31

¶32

mentioned as KA53-M-6969 and in the charge sheet, the vehicle number is mentioned as KA53-MB-6969. Neither of the parties have examined the Investigating Officer. Hence, he sought for remanding the matter to the Tribunal with opportunity to examine the Investigating Officer, eye witness and doctor, who treated the claimant.

¶33

Per contra, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has contended that he has no objection for remanding the matter for reconsideration. He contended that the Insurance Company has also not cross examined PW-1, claimant.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

¶35

The claim petition has been dismissed on

¶36

the ground that there is discrepancy in respect of

¶37

¶38

mentioning the vehicle number of the offending vehicle in the pleadings, FIR and charge sheet. The parties have not examined the Investigating Officer or any witness to the accident and further the claimant has also not examined the doctor, who treated the claimant.

¶39

Under the circumstances and in the interest of parties, the matter deserves to be remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.

¶40

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is setaside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.

¶41

The parties are at liberty to adduce additional evidence and produce additional documents to establish their case.

¶42

¶43

The Tribunal after giving opportunities to the

¶44

parties shall decide the matter in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

Mr. Aboobaker Siddik Talapady v. Dr. Narendra J Shetty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Aboobaker Siddik Talapady v. Dr. Narendra J Shetty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

L.Basavaraj Vs Mohammed Rafeeq

Sri Puttaraju Vs Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd.

Mohammed Ali Afthab Vs Abdul Azeem

Vasanth Kumar Vs the Manager

The Branch Manager Vs Shankar T

The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs N Kadirappa