Dismissed

Sri Shanthakumar B J v. the Divisional Manager

Karnataka HC3 Nov 2022MFA/505/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed an appeal against a tribunal order that rejected a motor accident claim petition. The court held that the dismissal was correct because the claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, yet there was no specific allegation of negligence against the appellant's motorcycle in the police complaint.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; Tribunal order upholding dismissal of claim petition stands.

Sri Shanthakumar B J Vs the Divisional Manager — Medical Negligence | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶5

M.F.A.NO.505/2015 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI SHANTHAKUMAR B.J., S/O THIMMAPPA B.S, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT UCCHANANGIPURA VILLAGE, JAGALUR TALUK-577 528. DAVANAGERE DIST.

¶8

...APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI V.B. SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INIDA INSURANCE CO. LTD., AKKA MAHADEVI ROAD, P.J. EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE-577 001.

¶12

YALLAPPA, S/O SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT UCCHANANGIPURA VILLAGE, JAGALUR TALUK-577528, DAVANAGERE DIST.

¶13

B.S. THIMMAPPA, S/O LATE SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT UCCHANANGIPURA VILLAGE,

¶14

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

JAGALUR TALUK-577 528, DAVANGERE DIST.

¶17

(BY SRI RAVISH BENNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1, MANJU AND MANJU ASSOCIATESS FOR R2 AND R3)

¶18

THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.09.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.160/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, & V MACT, DAVANAGERE, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

¶19

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

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶22

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 17.09.2014, passed in M.V.C.No.160/2014, on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, V MACT, Davanagere (‘the Tribunal’ for short) questioning the dismissal of the appeal.

¶23

¶24

The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal committed an error in dismissing the entire claim petition even though ‘C’ report is filed against the offending vehicle. The learned counsel submits that it is not in dispute that the claimant is the pillion rider of the vehicle and the Tribunal ought to have taken the contributory negligence against the rider of the motorcycle.

¶25

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the claimant, his uncle and father, all of them have joined together in order to make wrongful gain and given the details of an auto rickshaw and the same was not involved in the accident and hence the Investigating Officer investigated the matter and filed the ‘C’ report before the Court and the same is not challenged. When there is no allegation against the rider of the motorcycle, the question of entertaining the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (‘M.V. Act’ for short) does not arise. The learned counsel submits that the Tribunal in paragraph No.15, in detail discussed with regard to suppressing of the material before the Tribunal and rightly comes to the conclusion and hence no ground is made out to set aside the impugned order.

¶26

¶27

5. Having heard the respective learned counsel and also

¶28

on perusal of the material available on record, it is the case of the claimant that two vehicles are involved in the accident. The complaint is given against the driver of the auto rickshaw, who came and hit the two wheeler and admittedly, the complaint was given after 2½ days of the accident. It is the contention of the Insurance Company that the auto rickshaw was falsely implicated in the case in order to make wrongful gain. The police have also investigated the matter and filed the ‘C’ report stating that no vehicle was involved in the accident. The Tribunal while considering the material on record, in detail discussed in paragraph No.15 and comes to the conclusion that the auto rickshaw driver and the owner were not made as parties to the proceedings. It is also observed that there is a delay of more than 2½ days in filing the complaint and sufficient time was taken to file the complaint and complaint is filed afterthought and if really the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the motorcycle by respondent No.1, nothing prevented to say the said fact in the complaint. The Tribunal also taken note of the contents of the complaint, wherein no allegations are made against the rider of the motorcycle. When

¶29

¶30

such being the case, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim petition and hence I do not find any merit in the appeal to reverse the finding of the Tribunal.

¶31

The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that IMV report Ex.P.5 discloses the damages caused to the motorcycle. I have already pointed out that in a petition under Section 166 of the MV Act, there must be a specific allegation against the rider of the motorcycle, which was involved in the accident and no such allegation and no such material is placed before the Court regarding negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle and the complaint allegations are made against the driver of the auto rickshaw. Hence, I do not find any ground to reverse the finding of the Tribunal. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal ought to have taken the contributory negligence against the rider of the motorcycle cannot be accepted in the absence of cogent evidence and no allegation of negligence on the part of the rider of the two wheeler.

¶32

¶33

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶34

following:

¶35

ORDER

¶36

The appeal is dismissed.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

Sri Shanthakumar B J v. the Divisional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Shanthakumar B J v. the Divisional Manager

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

Smt Sannamma Vs Sri Kiran Kumar @ Kiran

Puttandamma Vs Murugesh N

R Mohamed Gouspeer Vs M Vishvanth

Mrs Avamma Vs Sri. Iqbal

Sri T Basavaiah Vs the Manager

Prakash Vs State by