Allowed

Ravi v. Rafeeq Pasha

Karnataka HC11 Oct 2022MFA/645/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal order dismissing a compensation claim. The court found the Tribunal erred in accepting prosecutor statements as disputed without examining the actual complainant or the investigating officer. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration within six months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment and award set aside; matter remanded to Tribunal for fresh consideration with specific directions to examine the complainant and investigating officer within six months.

Ravi Vs Rafeeq Pasha — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

M.F.A.NO.645/2013 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

RAVI S/O PUTTASWAMY, 24 YEARS, R/O GOWDAGERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201.

¶8

AS THE APPELLANT IS SUFFERING FROM MENTAL DISORDER, HE IS R/BY HIS NATURAL FATHER AND GUARDIAN PUTTASWAMY S/O THIMMEGOWDA, RESIDING IN THE ABOVE ADDRESS.

¶9

… APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SMT A.R.SHARADAMBA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

1 . RAFEEQ PASHA

¶13

S/O ABDUL RASHEED MAJOR, BAGURU ROAD, CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201, (OWNER OF CANTER LORRY BEARING REGN.NO.KA-19-B-1758).

¶14

¶15

2 . THE MANAGER

¶16

THE NEW INDIA ASSURRANCE CO., 2^ND FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING, G.H.S. ROAD, DAKSHINA KANNADA (POLICY NO.670800-31-05-01-00004150 PERIOD:17.01.2006 TO 16.01.2007). ... RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI P.B.RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 IS SERVED)

¶18

THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.10.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.29/2011 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, CHANNARAYAPATNA, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

¶19

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

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and

¶22

the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

¶23

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 09.10.2012, passed in M.V.C.No.29/2011 on the file of the Fast Track Court at Channarayapatna (‘the Tribunal’ for short).

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

The factual matrix of the case of the claimant before

¶27

the Tribunal is that on 27.11.2006 at about 9:00 a.m, when he was coming to Channarayapatna in a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-03-EV-7472 along with P.W.2 as a pillion rider, the Lorry came behind and dashed against the said vehicle, as a result, he had sustained the head injuries. Immediately, he was taken to K.R.Hospital and also to NIMHANS, Bengaluru, wherein, he took treatment as an inpatient. The natural guardian was examined as P.W.1 before the Tribunal since the injured had sustained head injury. He examined P.W.2, who is the rider of the motorcycle and also examined the Doctor as P.W.3 and got marked the documents marked as Exs.P1 to P56. The respondents have examined one witness as R.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.R1 to R5.

¶28

The Tribunal, after considering both oral and documentary evidence available on record, dismissed the claim petition. Hence, the present appeal is filed by the claimant.

¶29

appellant/claimant would vehemently contend that the finding

¶30

¶31

given by the Tribunal is that no damages on the rear portion of the motor cycle and only damages found on the front portion of the motorcycle, is not correct. When the heavy vehicle hit the moving motorcycle naturally the front portion of the vehicle damages and also taken note of the minor discrepancy that when the injured was taken to the hospital, the history was given that he was driving the motorcycle and not as a pillion rider and failed to take note of the material on record, particularly, the complaint was given on the same day and the charge-sheet is also filed against the driver of the Lorry and the driver of the Lorry also admitted the guilt and pleaded guilty and not led any contra evidence except examining the official witness – R.W.1, who is the eye witness to the incident and the Tribunal has committed an error.

¶32

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/Insurance Company would vehemently contend that the Tribunal while answering issue No.1 in detail discussed in paragraph Nos.13, 14 and 15 and given the reason that the accident has not been proved. Apart from that the Tribunal had given the reason as discrepancy and also given the history as hit

¶33

¶34

by a Lorry while he was driving a two wheeler. Hence, it is clear that he was driving the vehicle and not proceeding as pillion rider. Hence, it does not require any interference.

¶35

Having heard the respective counsel and on perusal of the material available on record, the injured had sustained grievous head injuries. Immediately he was taken to the Channarayapatna Hospital. Thereafter, he was shifted to Bellur Adichunchanagiri Hospital and then K.R.Hospital, Bengaluru. Having perused the material on record, the accident was taken place on 27.11.2006 at 9:00 a.m., and on the same day, the complaint was given by one Ravi son of Thammannegowda, wherein, he has stated that the Lorry hit the motorcycle and its rear portion, as a result, the injured had sustained the injuries. No doubt, in the Wound Certificate, it is mentioned that he was riding the motorcycle and he had sustained the injuries, but no document of history given is placed before the Tribunal except mentioning the Wound Certificate, no material that who has given the history and the fact that the injured has sustained the head injury is not in dispute. Only mentioning of the history in the Wound Certificate that he was riding the motorcycle, the

¶36

¶37

Tribunal comes to such a conclusion. The fact that the Lorry hit the motorcycle on the rear side is mentioned in the complaint itself on the very same day. The complainant has not been examined before the Trial Court, instead P.W.2, who claims that he was riding the motorcycle has been examined. Though he claims that he was driving the motorcycle and he has given the complaint and the records discloses that he has not given any complaint. In terms of Ex.P4, the complaint was given by Ravi son of Thammannegowda. The driver of the Lorry also admitted the guilt and pleaded guilty and to substantiate the same, the document – Ex.P1 is marked, wherein, it discloses that he pleaded guilty and paid the fine amount of Rs.1,000/- for an offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC and Rs.1,000/- for an offence under Section 338 of IPC. When such being the material on record, when there is no any delay in lodging the complaint and in the complaint also specific averment is made that the Lorry came behind and hit the motorcycle, in order to controvert the document - Ex.P1, no evidence has been led by the Insurance Company and also not examined the Investigating Officer to counter the case of the claimant. When such being the case, it is a fit case to remand the matter for re-consideration

¶38

¶39

and the claimant is also given an opportunity to examine the complainant before the Tribunal and the Insurance Company is also given liberty to contest the case by examining the Investigating Officer with regard to the allegation of false implication and also counter the evidence of the claimant, particularly, documents-Exs.P1, P2, P3 and P4 and no material before the Court to show that who has given the history at the time of injured when he was taken to the hospital and hence it requires further material for consideration of the case.

¶40

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶41

following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

(i) The appeal is allowed.

¶44

(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 09.10.2012, passed in M.V.C.No.29/2011, is set aside.

¶45

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

¶46

¶47

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

¶48

(v) The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 02.11.2022 without expecting any separate notice from the Tribunal.

¶49

(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.

¶50

(vii) The Registry is directed to transmit the records to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith to enable both the parties and the respective counsel to appear before the Tribunal on 02.11.2022.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

cp*

Ravi v. Rafeeq Pasha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi v. Rafeeq Pasha

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

Raghu Vs Sri Umesh

Narayana Vs Savitha