Remanded

Guru Swamy v. the Branch Manager

Karnataka HC31 Oct 2023MFA/1403/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's order dismissing a compensation claim. The Tribunal had presumed the claim was fraudulent based on discrepancies in an IMV report and police timelines, ignoring evidence. The High Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration and evidence adduction.

What did the court decide?

Award in M.V.C.No.314/2017 set aside; matter remanded to Tribunal for fresh consideration; parties to adduce evidence; decision within four months.

Guru Swamy Vs the Branch Manager — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:38550 MFA No. 1403 of 2018

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 31^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1403 OF 2018 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

GURU SWAMY, S/O RANGA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O HONNENAHALLI VILLAGE, DUDDA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. GIRISH B BALADARE, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE BRANCH MANAGER,

¶13

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

¶14

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, 1ST FLOOR, KRITHIKA ARCADE, N.R.CIRCLE, HOLENARASIPUR ROAD, HASSAN - 573 201.

¶15

MANJE GOWDA, S/O DASEGOWDA, MAHADEVARAHALLI VILLAGE, GANDASI HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN - 573 201.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. H. C, BETSUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 - SERVED)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:38550 MFA No. 1403 of 2018

¶20

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.10.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.314/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MACT, HASSAN, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

¶21

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

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

This is an appeal filed by the claimant aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition in M.V.C.No.314/2017 dated 06.10.2017 on the file of III Additional District Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Hassan. The claim petition was filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident.

¶24

It is the case of the claimant that on 27.06.2016

¶25

at about 10:30 a.m., when he was proceeding on his motor cycle along with one Dinesh, the Canter lorry belonging to respondent No.1 which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner had dashed against

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:38550 MFA No. 1403 of 2018

¶27

the motor cycle that belonged to the claimant, as a result of which the claimant had fallen on the road along with his motor cycle and sustained injuries. Immediately, he was admitted to the hospital and on the next day, father of the claimant had given the complaint to the police and basing on that, the police filed charge sheet against the driver of the lorry.

¶28

The Court below had dismissed the claim petition observing that as it is the case that the offending vehicle had hit the motor cycle from behind and as per the IMV Report, all the damages are to the front portion of the vehicle. Further, the Court below had observed that when the complaint was given on 28.06.2016, it reached the Magistrate on 29.06.2016 though the Hassan Rural Police Station is situated within Hassan City itself. Considering all these aspects, the Court below had held that this is a fraudulent claim and dismissed the claim petition.

¶29

Learned counsel for the claimant submits that the Court below had not given any opportunity and had not

¶30

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:38550 MFA No. 1403 of 2018

¶31

considered the evidence that is marked on behalf of the claimant i.e., Exs.P.1 to P.13 which supports the case of the claimant. It is submitted that the Court below had dismissed the claim petition without appreciating the evidence and considering the case in its proper perspective.

¶32

Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that the claimant has not even examined anyone, not even the pillion rider. Nothing is forthcoming to show that whether the pillion rider was injured or not. The IMV Report is contrary to the pleadings of the claimant and the Tribunal had rightly dismissed the claim petition.

¶33

In this case, there is no doubt that the claimant had not examined the pillion rider or any eye witness or the doctor in support of his case. Admittedly, the accident had taken place on 27.06.2016 and the father of the claimant had given the complaint on 28.06.2016. The

¶34

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:38550 MFA No. 1403 of 2018

¶35

observation of the Court below is that if the offending vehicle had hit the motor cycle of the claimant from the back side, it would not cause any damage to the front portion is without any basis. It is the case of the claimant that when the vehicle was hit from behind, he fell down along with the bike, the bike could be damaged even in that situation also. The Court below observed that complaint is given on 28.06.2016 and the same reached before the Magistrate on 29.06.2016 which is in the same city and further, latches or delay on part of the police

¶36

cannot be attributed to the claimant. The Court below had failed to consider any of the evidence and has dealt with the case more on assumptions and presumptions. The claimant had also not examined the witness.

¶37

Considering all these aspects, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the award passed in M.V.C.No.314/2017 dated 06.10.2017 and remand the matter back to the Court below for fresh consideration. Both the parties are at liberty to adduce evidence.

¶38

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:38550 MFA No. 1403 of 2018

¶39

Without further notice, they shall appear before the Tribunal on 16.11.2023 and the Court below shall decide the case within four months from that date. If the parties do not appear before the Court and do not cooperate, the Court below shall pass appropriate orders.

¶40

i) 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.

¶41

ii) No costs.

¶42

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶43

SD/JUDGE

¶44

MEG

¶45

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26 CT: BHK

Guru Swamy v. the Branch Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guru Swamy v. the Branch 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

Mr Kurshad Alam Vs the Manaing Director

B. E. Chandrashekar Vs Thejus

Sri Anand Kumar M Vs the Director

Sri Madhava Vs Sri Santhosh Devadiga

Rangamaanar Vs C.R. Prasanna Kumar

Sri. Shankar Vs Sri. Riyaz Khan