Allowed

Sri Jagadeesh K v. Sri Krishnappa

Karnataka HC16 Aug 2022MFA/3391/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed an appeal by a motor accident claimant against the dismissal of his claim petition by the Tribunal. The Court set aside the impugned judgment, holding that the appellant was entitled to an opportunity to examine the eye-witness regarding the accident factum and injuries, and remanded the case to the Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed; the impugned judgment is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. Both parties are at liberty to adduce further evidence.

Sri Jagadeesh K Vs Sri Krishnappa — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

1 MFA NO.3391/2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶6

M.F.A.NO.3391/2018 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

SRI. JAGADEESH K., S/O LATE KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT MARALENAHALLI, WARD NO.1, SIRA GATE & POST, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-576221.

¶9

… APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. M.V. MAHESHWARAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

SRI. KRISHNAPPA, S/O HANUMANTHAIAH, MAJOR IN AGE, R/AT NO.153, KEMPEGOWDANAGARA, HONNAGANAHATTI, BENGALURU-577054.

¶13

THE BRANCH MANAGER, M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.266, GANGADHARAPPA COMPLEX, SUNKADAKATTE MAGADI MAIN ROAD, VISHWANEEDAM POST, BENGALURU-560 097.

¶14

... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.A.N.KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R1-SERVED)

¶15

2 MFA NO.3391/2018

¶16

THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:08.02.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.2082/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-16), DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND ETC.,

¶17

THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

This appeal is filed under Section-173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred to as ‘MV Act’ for brevity) by the appellant-claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 08.02.2018, passed in MVC No.2082/2016, on the file of the Court of Small Causes And Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bengaluru (SCCH-16), (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for brevity) seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶20

Brief facts:

¶21

That on 18.11.2015, at about 2.45 p.m.,

¶22

the claimant was traveling as a pillion rider on the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-11-L-2910

¶23

3 MFA NO.3391/2018

¶24

ridden by one Chandrashekar B.C. At that time, a lorry bearing registration No.KL-28-A-2490 driven by its driver rashly and negligently came from behind and hit the motor cycle. Due to the collusion, the claimant fell down and sustained injuries. Immediately, he was taken to Lakshmi Specialty Hospital in ambulance. After first aid treatment, he was shifted to Columbia Asia Hospital, in which he was treated as inpatient and surgery was done.

¶25

Hence, a claim petition was filed by the appellant under Section-166 of the M.V. Act, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident. The Tribunal on appreciating the materials on record, dismissed the claim petition on the ground that eye-witness to the accident was not examined. Therefore, the Tribunal by doubting the factum of accident and the claimant having sustained injuries, dismissed the claim petition.

¶26

4 MFA NO.3391/2018

¶27

The learned counsel for the appellantclaimant submitted that if an opportunity is given to the claimant to examine the eye-witness to prove the factum of the accident and the claimant has sustained injuries in the said accident, then it may meet the ends of the justice. Hence, prays to remand the case.

¶28

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent – insurance company submitted that even though the eye-witness is examined there would not be any difference. Therefore, submitted that appeal is liable to be dismissed and prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶29

In the present case, the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition of the appellant – claimant. The Tribunal had formed an opinion since there was no damages found on the lorry and therefore created doubt in the mind of the Tribunal, that there was a collusion with the owner of the lorry

¶30

5 MFA NO.3391/2018

¶31

and the claimant and therefore dismissed the claim petition.

¶32

In the present case, the claimant wants to prove the factum of the accident and having sustained injuries by the claimant in the above said accident by examining the eye-witness of the accident. Therefore, submitted that if the eye-witness is examined, it would prove the factum of the accident and injuries sustained by the claimant. Therefore, requested this Court to give opportunity to the claimant to examine the eye-witness to the accident. Therefore, prays to remand the case.

¶33

On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant, I find that there is force in the submission made by the counsel for the appellant – claimant that an opportunity be given to the claimant to examine eye-witnesses and then the Tribunal shall consider the case on its merits and pass judgment in

¶34

6 MFA NO.3391/2018

¶35

accordance with law. Therefore, on this ground alone, the case is required to be remanded to the Tribunal, by setting aside the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

¶36

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

i. The appeal is allowed .

¶39

ii. The impugned judgment and award dated 08.02.2018, passed in MVC No.2082/2016,

¶40

on the file of Small Causes And Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bengaluru, is set-aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

¶41

iii. Both parties are at liberty to adduce any further evidence both orally and documentary, if they are so advised.

¶42

7 MFA NO.3391/2018

¶43

iv. The appellant – claimant is not entitled for interest from the date of filing of this appeal i.e., from 20.04.2018 till today.

¶44

v. Registry is directed to transfer the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

JUDGE

¶47

Sri Jagadeesh K v. Sri Krishnappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Jagadeesh K v. Sri Krishnappa

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

M/S Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Smt Gangamma

The Managing Director Vs Mr. Kapil Batra

Kapil Batra Vs the Managing Director

Smt Parvathamma Vs Smt Rama Singh

Sri Rangegowda B D Vs Sri Hanumesh S N

Smt. Shivanagamma Vs Jiyauddin