Allowed

Raghu v. Sri Umesh

Karnataka HC11 Oct 2022MFA/2632/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This motor accident claim was dismissed by the Tribunal due to discrepancies in the claimant's account. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's judgment, and remanded the matter for fresh determination of contributory negligence and compensation quantum, directing disposal within six months.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for reconsideration and fresh award within six months.

Raghu Vs Sri Umesh — 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.P. SANDESH

¶6

M.F.A.NO.2632/2013 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RAGHU S/O RENUKAPPA 29 YEARS R/O VINAYAKANAGARA GUBBI TOWN, GUBBI-572 216 TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

¶9

… APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI PATEL D. KAREGOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

1 . SRI UMESH

¶13

47 YEARS S/O GUBBI HUCHAIAH R/O CHIKKONAHALLY VILLAGE GUBBI TALUK-572 216 TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

¶14

2 . THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED BRANCH OFFICE, I FLOOR, T.G.M.A., BUILDING J.C.ROAD, TUMAKURU TOWN-572 101 BY ITS MANAGER. ... RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI C.R. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; R-1 IS SERVED)

¶16

THIS M.F.A., IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.12.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.1446/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR

¶17

¶18

CIVIL JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT-17, GUBBI, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS M.F.A., COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and

¶21

the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/Insurance Company.

¶22

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 18.12.2012, passed in M.V.C.No.1446/2008 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT-17 at Gubbi (‘the Tribunal’ for short).

¶23

The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the Tribunal to avoid confusion and for the convenience of the Court.

¶24

The factual matrix of the case of the claimant before the Tribunal is that on 19.08.2008 at 8:00 a.m, the claimant and his father had gone to Champa Hotel to supply milk to the said Hotel and the claimant was standing near their TVS Moped bearing registration No.KA-06-EA-1816 on the extreme left side

¶25

¶26

of the road while his father had gone inside the Hotel and at that time one luggage auto bearing registration No.KA-06-B-5558 came from Circle side in a rash and negligent manner at high speed without following any traffic rules dashed against the claimant and the TVS moped and went towards Subhashnagar side without stopping, as a result, he has sustained injuries like fracture of patella on right side, head injury with internal bleeding, bleeding of left ear and other blood injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Gubbi and after the first aid he was shifted to Shri. Siddartha Medical College Hospital, Tumakuru and thereafter because of head injury, he was shifted to NIMHANS, Bengaluru.

¶27

The claimant in order to prove his case, he examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined one witness as P.W.2 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P22. On the other hand, the respondents have not examined any witness and also not marked any documents.

¶28

The Tribunal, after considering both oral and documentary evidence available on record comes to the conclusion that there is a discrepancy in the evidence of the

¶29

¶30

claimant, particularly, the place of accident mentioned in the hospital, wherein, a history was given that the accident took place near Tumakuru and not Gubbi Bus stand and further it also implies that the accident took place when he was ‘going in a bike’. Hence, comes to the conclusion that the manner in which the accident alleged has not been proved. Hence, dismissed the claim petition. Being aggrieved by the judgment of dismissal of the claim petition, the present appeal is filed by the claimant.

¶31

The learned counsel appearing for the

¶32

appellant/claimant would vehemently contend that even the IMV report mainly relied upon by the Tribunal regarding damages. An IMV report clearly discloses the damages caused to the vehicles

¶33

i.e., auto rickshaw as well as the motorcycle. Hence, it is clear that there was an accident. Whether the accident is on account of the negligence on the part of the claimant or the driver of the auto rickshaw has not been considered; instead dismissed the entire claim petition. Hence, it requires an interference of this Court.

¶34

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/Insurance Company would vehemently contend

¶35

¶36

that the Tribunal in paragraph Nos.12 and 13 in detail discussed the manner of accident as well as the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that he was ‘going in a bike’ and he was not standing on the extreme left side of the road and found the discrepancy in the history given by the injured himself and rightly dismissed the claim petition.

¶37

Having heard the respective counsel and on perusal

¶38

of the material available on record, particularly, on perusal of the document Ex.P7-IMV report, it clearly discloses that there are damages to both the vehicles. When such being the case, whether it has sustained damages on the front portion or rear portion is immaterial when an accident was taken place and both the vehicles are involved in the accident and sustained damages. The very approach of the Tribunal is erroneous. The Tribunal while answering issue No.1 in paragraph No.13, taken note of the fact that the petitioner himself has given the history that hit by an auto rickshaw from behind while going in a bike. But it is the claim of the claimant that he was standing on the extreme left side of the road. When the injured was given the history immediately after the accident that the involvement of two

¶39

¶40

vehicles, the Tribunal ought to have taken note of the said fact into consideration, when an accident was taken place, the damages was also caused to both the vehicles, the injured was also sustained the injuries and he took treatment in the Hospital and ought to have taken note of the negligence on the part of the claimant as well as the driver of the offending vehicle instead erroneously dismissed the claim petition. Hence, it requires interference of this Court and it is a fit case to remand the matter for re-consideration of contributory negligence and determine the quantum of compensation.

¶41

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶42

following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

(i) The appeal is allowed.

¶45

(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 18.12.2012, passed in M.V.C.No.1446/2008, is hereby set aside.

¶46

(iii) The matter is remanded to the Tribunal to consider the matter afresh in the light of the observations made by this Court.

¶47

¶48

(iv) This is the matter of the year 2013. Hence, the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter within six months from today.

¶49

(v) The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 08.11.2022 without expecting any separate notice from the Tribunal.

¶50

(vi) Both the parties and the respective counsel are directed to assist the Tribunal to dispose of the case within the stipulated period of six months from today.

¶51

(vii) The Registry is directed to transmit the records forthwith to the concerned Tribunal to enable both the parties and the respective counsel to appear before the Tribunal on 08.11.2022.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

cp*

Raghu v. Sri Umesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghu v. Sri Umesh

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

Ajjagappa @ Ajjaganna Vs Ravishankar M J

Sri Somashekar Vs Sri G Rajendran

Damayanthi P Shettigar Vs Mr Jayanth Kumar

Nagarathnamma Vs Hanumantha Reddy

Ravi Vs Rafeeq Pasha

Narayana Vs Savitha