Disposed

Mahadevappa v. Abida Bhanu

Karnataka HC4 Nov 2022WP/52921/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a preliminary hearing on a writ petition challenging an order dismissing a claim petition for lack of jurisdiction in a motor accident case, the Court directed the petitioners to approach the territorially competent MACT at Bhadravathi and disposed of the writ petition without deciding underlying merits.

What did the court decide?

Directive to file claim petition before MACT Bhadravathi within four weeks. Disposal of writ petition.

Mahadevappa Vs Abida Bhanu — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 04^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.52921/2015 (GM-AC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MAHADEVAPPA S/O NANDYAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS

¶8

M.K. NARENDRA S/O MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

¶9

M.K. RAVINDRA S/O MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

¶10

ALL ARE RESIDING AT YADEHALLI VILLAGE BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. NOW RESIDING AT J.C.EXTENSION, HOLALKERE, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

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

¶13

AND:

¶14

ABIDA BHANU W/O SAMI ULLA, AGE: MAJOR NO.188, KAGE KADOMAGEE, BHADRAVATHI TALUK - 577301 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶15

¶16

H.M. JAYARAM S/O OBALADARA MALLAPPA, AGE: MAJOR OWNER OF AUTO RICKSHAW BEARING NO.KA-14-9985 R/O SANNAKURUBARA BEEDI, OLD TOWN, BHADRAVATHI – 577301.

¶17

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, AKKAMAHADEVI ROAD, P.J. EXTENSION, DAVANGERE.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-3; R-1 AND R-2 ARE SERVED )

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.09.2014 PASSED BY THE COURT OF ADDL. M.A.C.T. HOLALKERE IN M.V.C. NO.325/2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The petitioners in this writ petition assail the

¶24

order dated 17/09/2014, passed in MVC.No.322/2012 on the file of the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Holalkere (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal” for short), whereby, learned Principal District & Sessions Judge

¶25

¶26

held that the petition filed by the claimants seeking compensation is not maintainable and directed to file the claim petition before the territorial jurisdictional Court, Bhadravathi.

¶27

Heard learned counsel, Sri M.V. Hiremath for the petitioners and the learned counsel, Sri O. Mahesh appearing for the 3^rd respondent-Insurance Company.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioners would

¶29

contend that the petitioners filed the claim petition seeking compensation for the accident that occurred in the road traffic accident on 05/06/2012 and due to which, 1^st petitioner lost his wife and the 2^nd and 3^rd petitioners are the children of deceased Kamalamma and the 1^st petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petition was very much maintainable as the petitioners were residing in

¶30

¶31

Chitradurga and the direction issued by the Tribunal to file a petition before the jurisdictional Court within Bhadravathi Jurisdiction is not maintainable.

¶32

Learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent-

¶33

insurance company would justify the order and contend that the claim petition before the MACT, Chitradurga is not maintainable as the accident occurred at Bhadravathi, the claimants are residing at Bhadravathi and the defendant-insurance company does not carry business at Chitradurga.

¶34

Sub-Clause 1(d) of Section 166 envisages

¶35

that the option is available to claimants to either file application (1) where the claimant resides (2) or where the defendant resides or carries the business or where the defendant resides.

¶36

¶37

Looking into the material on record, it would reveal that the claimants are the residents of Bhadravathi, the policy was issued at Bhadravathi and the defendant-insurance company carries on the business at Bhadravathi and thus, the MACT, Chitradurga lacks territorial jurisdiction.

¶38

In light of this above, this Court pass the

¶39

following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

(i) Writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioners to file the claim petition before MACT, Bhadravathi, having territorial jurisdiction within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

¶42

(ii) All the contentions of the parties are kept

¶43

open to be urged before the territorial jurisdictional Court including awarding of

¶44

¶45

interest for the delayed period taking into consideration the filing of the claim petition

¶46

before the wrong forum.

¶47

No order as to costs.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

Mahadevappa v. Abida Bhanu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahadevappa v. Abida Bhanu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harish Patkar Vs Bengaluru Mahanagara Transport Corporation (Bmtc)

Sangeetha Khanna Vs the State of Karnataka

Panduranga Vs the Director of Scheduled Tribe

M/S Rangoli Digitals Vs the Karnataka State Level

M/S Ramananda Gas Agency Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt. Reshma Naveen Vs the State of Karnataka