Allowed

Rehana Banu v. Shivakumar R

Karnataka HC7 Nov 2022MFA/3982/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed two appeals filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, setting aside the Tribunal's judgment dismissing travel consent claims. The order remanded the matter to the Tribunal to expedite proceedings, account for pending documents, and hear both sides with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment of the Tribunal was set aside and the matter remanded to the Tribunal to proceed with evidence consideration.

Rehana Banu Vs Shivakumar R — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M.JOSHI

¶7

MFA NO. 3970 OF 2021(MV)

¶8

CONNECTED WITH

¶9

MFA NO. 3982 OF 2021(MV)

¶10

IN MFA NO.3970/2021:

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

Mohammed Sharuk S/o Mohammed Yaseen Aged about 26 years R/at Gandhinagar Tiptur Taluk

¶13

Present Address:

¶14

R/at Veerasagara Melekote, Tumkuru Taluk Tumkuru District – 577101.

¶15

... Appellant

¶16

(By Sri. Mallikarjun Dodda Basavarajappa Ryakha - Advocate)

¶17

AND

¶18

Shivakumar R S/o. Rajamani Aged about 43 years

¶19

¶20

R/o Door No.4/86 Ward No.04, Solaikttai Naickanahalli Post Dhamapuri Taluk Tamil Nadu State- 636702.

¶21

The Manager United India General Insurance Company LTd., Service Address: The Manager United India General Insurance Company Ltd., BH Road Tumkuru – 577101.

¶22

... Respondents

¶23

(By Sri. P. B. Raju – Advocate for R-2; R-1 is served)

¶24

This MFA is filed u/s 173(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act – 1988, praying this Hon’ble court may be pleased to call for the records in MVC No.1156/2019 on the file of VII-Addl. District Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Tumkuru and set-aside the judgment and award dated 16.04.2021 by allowing this appeal.

¶25

IN MFA NO.3982/2021:

¶26

BETWEEN

¶27

Rehana Banu W/o. Dadapeer Aged about 47 years

¶28

Dadapeer S/o Late Abdul Rahaman Aged about 48 years

¶29

¶30

Hajira Banu D/o Dadapeer W/o Allabakshid Aged about 25 years

¶31

Abdul Rahaman S/o. Dadapeer Aged about 24 years

¶32

Nadeem Pasha S/o. Dadapeer Aged about 23 years

¶33

Shaheel Pasha S/o. Dadapeer Aged about 12 years Appellant No.6 is Minor Represented by his Mother As natural Guardian. All are R/at Gandhinagara, Tiptur Presently R/at Good Shed Colony Tumkuru Town Tumkuru Taluk and District-577101.

¶34

... Appellants

¶35

(By Sri. Mallikarjun Dodda Basavarajappa

¶36

Ryakha - Advocate) AND

¶37

Shivakumar R S/o. Rajamani Aged about 43 years R/o Door No.4/86

¶38

¶39

Ward No.04, Solaikttai Naickanahalli Post Dhamapuri Taluk Tamil Nadu State- 636702.

¶40

The Branch Manager United India General Insurance Company LTd., Service Address: The Manager United India General Insurance Company Ltd., BH Road Tumkuru – 577101.

¶41

... Respondents

¶42

(By Sri. P. B. Raju – Advocate for R-2; R-1 served)

¶43

This MFA is filed u/s 173(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act – 1988, praying this Hon’ble court may be pleased to call for the records in MVC No.858/2019 on the file of VII-Addl. District Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Tumkuru and set-aside the judgment and award dated 16.04.2021 by allowing this appeal

¶44

These MFAs’ coming on for Orders this day, K Somashekar .J ., delivered the following:

¶45

J U D G M E N T

¶46

The case in MFA.No.3970/2021 and

¶47

MFA.No.3982/2021 have been preferred against the

¶48

impugned judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal

¶49

¶50

in MVC.No.1156/2019 and MVC.No.858/2019 dated 16.04.2021 whereby aforesaid claim petitions came to be dismissed. But the claim petition made by the claimant who is injured and another claim petition made by LRs of the deceased but clubbing judgment has been rendered by the Tribunal based upon the evidence of PWs.1 to3 and documents at Exs.P1 to 15.

¶51

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for appellants and so also counsel for respondent No.2 who are present before the Court.

¶52

On 13.06.2019, the deceased – Waseem Pasha was driving the lorry bearing Registration No.KA44-9047 and the petitioner in MVC 1156/2019 was traveling as cleaner of the said lorry and when the lorry was proceeding in NH 150 (A) road, near BG Kere village, Molakalmuru Taluk, Chitradurga District, at around 5.30 pm, the lorry bearing Registration No.TN29-BE-3481 which was driven in rash and negligent manner came and hit the former lorry, as a result of which the deceased lost

¶53

¶54

his breath at the scene of crime and the petitioners who are claimants in MVC 1156/2019 sustained grievous injuries. But respondent No.1 is arrayed on the ground that he is the owner of the offending lorry bearing Registration No.TN-29-BE-3481 and respondent No.2 is arrayed as the insurer of the same. These are the contentions made by the parties relating to the injured persons and approached the Tribunal seeking compensation and LRs of the deceased also approached

¶55

the Tribunal seeking compensation. But it is the beneficiary legislation which has to be considered in accordance with law. But the Court below taken into consideration the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and also documents at Exs.P1 to 15. It is relevant to refer Ex.P1 copy of the FIR which was recorded by the jurisdictional police. Ex.P2 is the complaint copy registered against the accused by recording FIR. Inquest mahazar at Ex.P3 and Spot mahazar at Ex.P4 was also held. Ex.P5 is the post mortem report issued by the doctor who conducted

¶56

¶57

autopsy over the dead body. These are all the material documents produced and got marked on part of the parties relating to seeking compensation under relevant provision of MV Act. Ex.P10 is the discharge summary relating to the injured who got treatment in the hospital. Ex.P11 is Outpatient Slip. These are all the documents produced before the Tribunal by venturing into the claim petition in MVC.No.858/2019 and MVC.No.1156/2019. Keeping in view the scope of Section 166 of MV Act, most of the incident to intendment of the said provision for according relief as sought for by presence and approaching the Court below more so this beneficiary legislation relating to the accident occurred and criminal law was set into motion by the claimant who is the gravamen of the injury narrated in the complaint and based upon that complaint FIR was recorded by the police and investigation has been done by the investigating agency. Keeping in view Section 173 (2) of Cr.P.C filing of the charge sheet against the accused persons relating to the involvement of offending vehicle.

¶58

¶59

But appreciation of evidence is vested with the trial Court in accordance with proved, disproved and not proved as under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and it is the domain vested with the Court below where the case initiated for seeking relief under relevant provision neither Cr.P.C nor provision of Indian Evidence Act, it is beneficiary legislation whereby the injured person or even LRs of the deceased approached the Tribunal seeking compensation under Section 166 of MV, Act. But in this matter it requires dwelling into detail by looking into entire materials but counsel for the parties submits that this matter has to be decided and remanded back to the Tribunal relating to the case in MVC.No.858/2019 and MVC.No.1156/2019 to proceed further in accordance with law.

¶60

Therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid substances and contentions made by counsel for parties in these appeals, we are of the opinion that these appeals require to

¶61

¶62

be allowed in accordance with law and hence, we proceed to pass the following :

¶63

ORDER

¶64

The case in MFA.No.3970/2021 and MFA.No.3982/2021 are hereby allowed and consequently setting aside the impugned judgment of M.V.C.No.1156/2019 and M.V.C.No.858/2019 dated 16.04.2021. However, Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C to furnish relevant documents in respect of charge sheet and materials are pending for consideration. The appeal in MFA.No.3970/2021 and MFA.No.3982/2021, whereby common judgment has been challenged under this appeal, it is deemed appropriate that the Tribunal shall proceed in accordance with law for consideration of the applications relating to filing of the charge sheet and other documents for the purpose of reference. Accordingly, made an observation.

¶65

In the meanwhile, the claim petition is of the year 2019 and even death of the person is also in the year

¶66

¶67

But the claim petition made by petitioners one made by the injured person and another petition made by the LRs of the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal in the aforesaid case is directed to expedite these matters in accordance with law by giving opportunity to both sides and facilitating their evidence under relevant provision of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

¶68

Sd/JUDGE

¶69

Sd/JUDGE

¶70

Rehana Banu v. Shivakumar R

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rehana Banu v. Shivakumar R

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

Nithya Sri @ Nithya Sri K. G. Vs Sri. Basavaraju K N

V. Anand @ v Anandan Vs M/S Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

State by Vs Mithun Kumar

Smt J Vanitha @ Thangam Vs State of Karnataka

Mohammed Sharuk Vs Shivakumar R

Smt Gowramma Vs Smt Jyothi Rodrigues