Remanded

Nagaraj v. Smt Manjula

Karnataka HC18 Jan 2023MFA/1269/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Motor First Appeal concerns liability in a motor accident claim. The High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Tribunal without expressing an opinion on merits. The case is remanded to determine the validity of the driver's license.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed, the impugned award is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal to determine the validity of the driver's license to drive the vehicle.

Nagaraj Vs Smt Manjula — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 1269 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1269 OF 2016 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

NAGARAJ S/O DYAVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OWNER OF LORRY BEARING REGN NO. KA-41/751, R/O YADEHALLI, ANANDAPURA HOBLI, SAGAR TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577201.

¶8

Digitally signed by JAI JYOTHI J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

(BY SRI. SHRIPAD V SHASTRI , ADVOCATE)

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

AND:

¶12

SMT MANJULA W/O LATE YOGENDRA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

¶13

SUNIL S/O LATE YOGENDRA AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS,

¶14

SUNITA

¶15

D/O LATE YOGENDRA AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS, APPELLANT NOS. 2 AND 3 ARE MINORS, REPTD. BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN, MOTHER 1^ST APPELLANT.

¶16

¶17

MFA No. 1269 of 2016

¶18

APPELLANTS ARE RESIDENT OF IRUVAKKI VILLAGE, ANANDAPURA HOBLI, SAGAR TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577201.

¶19

SANDEEP S/O MANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, DRIVER OF LORRY BEARING REGN. NO. KA-41/751, R/O YADEHALLI, ANANDAPURA HOBLI, SAGAR TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577201.

¶20

SHREE RAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., S-5, 2ND FLOOR, MONARCH CHAMBERS, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. REPTD. BY THE MANAGER.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. HARISH KUMAR M S, ADVOCATE FOR R4., SRI. O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R5, R1, R2 & R3-ARE SERVED, )

¶23

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED19.11.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.479/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, & JMFC, MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT-9, SAGAR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.6,50,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶24

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

¶26

MFA No. 1269 of 2016

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

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–owner of the offending Lorry bearing No.KA-41/751, calling in question the judgment and award dated 19.11.2015, passed in M.V.C.No.479/2013, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & J.M.F.C. And Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sagar, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for brevity) questioning the liability fastened on him.

¶29

Brief facts:

¶30

On 31.12.2012 morning, Yogendra, the

¶31

husband of the first claimant and father of claimant Nos.2 and 3 was going in a Lorry bearing registration No.KA41/751 as a Loader from Yedehalli to Gamanagadde. The first respondent being the driver had driven the said Lorry in a rash and negligent manner and caused accident near

¶32

¶33

MFA No. 1269 of 2016

¶34

Gamanagadde cross, Kalluhalla bridge. Due to the impact, the husband of the first claimant sustained grievous injury and succumbed to injuries on in the spot.

¶35

Hence, a claim petition was filed by the claimants under Section-166 of the M.V. Act, claiming compensation for the death of the deceased in the accident. The Tribunal on appreciating the materials on record allowed the petition in part and awarded a compensation of Rs.6,50,000/-, along with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization and fastened the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle.

¶36

Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record.

¶37

The Tribunal had determined the compensation

¶38

and fastened the liability on the appellant-owner on the ground that the driver of the lorry was not holding the Driving License. Hence, I.A.No.1/2021 is filed by the

¶39

¶40

MFA No. 1269 of 2016

¶41

appellant-owner seeking to produce the driving license of Sandeep the driver of the offending lorry, by way of additional document. In order to check the genuinity and veracity and also the period of the Driving License that he was competent to drive the said vehicle, the additional documents are to be considered at the time of leading evidence. Therefore, for the reasons stated in the application, I.A. No.2/2021 is allowed.

¶42

Therefore, the case is remanded to the Tribunal without expressing any opinion on merits involved in the case, to consider whether the driver of the offending lorry was holding a valid Driving License to drive the offending vehicle at the time of accident. All the contentions are kept open. The parties are given liberty to adduce any evidence if they are so advised.

¶43

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶44

¶45

MFA No. 1269 of 2016

¶46

ORDER

¶47

i. The appeal is Allowed and Remanded .

¶48

ii. The impugned judgment and award dated 19.11.2015, passed in M.V.C.No.479/2013, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & J.M.F.C. And Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sagar is set-aside.

¶49

iii. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 01.03.2023 , without expecting any further notice in this regard. The Tribunal shall consider the matter afresh and dispose of the same within six months from 01.03.2023, in accordance with law.

¶50

iv. The parties are at liberty to adduce further evidence and file additional material if so advised.

¶51

¶52

MFA No. 1269 of 2016

¶53

v. In case the petition is allowed and the liability is fastened on the insurance company, the appellant-owner shall pay the interest on the compensation amount from the date of the petition till today.

¶54

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

¶55

vii. No order as to costs.

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

JJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41

Nagaraj v. Smt Manjula

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagaraj v. Smt Manjula

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

Nooruddien Vs B Datta Kumar

Smt. Shabana Vs B Datta Kumar

Lokesh C Vs Master Tharun

The Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Prakash

Karthikeya K Vs Karnataka State Road Transport

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kum Swetha D L