Allowed

Vijayakumar B.R v. B.G. Paramesh

Karnataka HC4 Dec 2023MFA/1487/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MFA against dismissal of compensation claim in motor vehicle accident. Court found medical records credible over IMV report, concluding third-party negligence caused accident. Appeal allowed with remand for compensation assessment.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award set aside; matter remanded to Senior Civil Judge & Addl. MACT, Harihar to ascertain and award compensation within six months.

Vijayakumar B.R Vs B.G. Paramesh — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:44006 MFA No. 1487 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1487 OF 2017

(MV-I)

BETWEEN:

VIJAYAKUMAR B.R.

S/O B. RUDRAPPA, NINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, STUDENT CUM AGRICULTURIST, RESIDENT OF :

¶11

GUDDADA BEVINAHALLI - VILLAGE, HARIHARA - TALUK, DAVANAGERE - DIST - 577530.

¶12

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

¶13

(BY SRI. M.R. HIREMATHAD.,ADVOCATE)

¶14

…APPELLANT

¶15

AND:

¶16

B.G. PARAMESH, S/O GANESHAPPA, RESIDENT OF GUDDADA BEVINAHALLI VILLAGE, HARIHARA - TALUK, DAVANAGERE - DIST - 577530. RC OWNER CUM RIDER OF MOTORCYCLE

¶17

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:44006 MFA No. 1487 of 2017

¶18

BEARING REG. NO. KA-17-EH-7354

¶19

THE MANAGER, ICICI LOMBARD MOTOR CYCLE INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO: 414, VEERASAVARKAR MARGA, NEAR SIDDIVINAYAKA TEMPLE, PRABHADEVI, BOMBAY - 400025.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. A.N. KRISHNA SWAMY., ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.08.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.240/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, HARIHAR, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

¶23

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

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

This is an appeal filed by the claimant aggrieved by the dismissal of MVC.No.240/2014 dated 12.08.2016 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT at Harihar.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2023:KHC:44006 MFA No. 1487 of 2017

¶28

The claim petition is filed seeking compensation

¶29

of an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. The case of the claimant is that on 29.06.2013 at 6.10 p.m. he was proceeding on his motor cycle, at that time, the driver of the offending vehicle came in a rash and negligent manner came from back side and hit against the claimant motor cycle. As a result, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries on his left forearm. Immediately he was shifted to Bapuji Hospital, Davanagere and thereafter to Kasturba Hospital, Manipal and he took treatment from 30.06.2013 to 09.07.2013. It is the case of the claimant that he has spent huge amounts for his treatment. The court below

¶30

has observed that as per the motor vehicle inspector report, on the claimant's vehicle there are head light mask scratches, front wheel mud guard broken, left side rear view mirror damaged, rear left side indicator broken. When it comes to the offending vehicle, there are no visible damages at the time of inspection. Basing on this court has come to conclusion that the accident occurred

¶31

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:44006 MFA No. 1487 of 2017

¶32

due to the rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle by the claimant himself and there is no involvement of the other vehicle.

¶33

Learned counsel for the claimant submits that

¶34

the court below without appreciating the evidence had come to such a conclusion. He submits that Ex.P-4 wound certificate discloses that it is hit by another motorcycle and

¶35

the claimant had sustained injuries. Even in the MLC intimation it is mentioned as RTA. He submits that when the accident had taken place on 29.06.2013, on the next day of 30.06.2013 a complaint is lodged. The court below failed to appreciate the medical evidence as well as the police records and had dismissed the claim petition.

¶36

On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance company submits that when the petition is filed under section 166 of the MV Act, the burden lies on the claimant to prove that the accident injuries and the involvement of the vehicle and the negligence. It is

¶37

¶38

NC: 2023:KHC:44006 MFA No. 1487 of 2017

¶39

submitted that in this case, the IMV report shows that his vehicle is not damaged and the court below had rightly held that its fall from bike and he got injured.

¶40

5. Having heard the learned counsel on either

¶41

side, perused the entire material on record. In this case, the accident had taken place on 29.06.2013 at 6.10 p.m.

¶42

and the report was given on 30.06.2013 about the involvement of the vehicle. Even before this, the claimant was admitted in the hospital and as per the wound certificate, it shows that it is a hit by another motor cycle.

¶43

Even the MLC refers to the road traffic accident. The court below had failed to consider these documents and more impressed with the IMV Report. It is the case of the claimant that when the vehicle came and hit from back side, due to said impact, he fell down and sustained injuries. In the light of Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4, Ex.R-2, this court comes to the conclusion that the vehicle is involved in the accident. Because of the rash and negligent riding by the rider of the offending vehicle, accident had taken place.

¶44

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:44006 MFA No. 1487 of 2017

¶45

The court below had dismissed the petition. As such no discussion was done on the compensation. In that view of the matter, the appeal is remanded back to the court below for the specific purpose of ascertaining the compensation which the claimant is entitled.

¶46

Accordingly, the impugned award is set aside

¶47

and the matter is remanded back to the Senior Civil Judge & Addl. MACT, Harihar for consideration on compensation. The parties without further notice shall appear before the court on 15.12.2023, the court below shall dispose off the matter within six months from 15.12.2023.

¶48

(i) It is open to both the parties to raise their respective contentions, objections and adduce additional evidence if any.

¶49

(ii) The Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Record to the Tribunal along with the certified copy of the order passed by this court forthwith without any delay.

¶50

¶51

NC: 2023:KHC:44006 MFA No. 1487 of 2017

¶52

(iii) No Costs.

¶53

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

stand closed.

SD/JUDGE

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 75

Vijayakumar B.R v. B.G. Paramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijayakumar B.R v. B.G. Paramesh

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

Sri. Shivaraj @ Rajesh Vs Venkataswamy Reddy

The Divisional Manager Vs Avinash Shetty

Basavarajappa H M Vs Jayanna

Mr Vemanarayana Vs the Managing Director

Ananda. K Vs Narayana Murthy

Sri v Krishne Gowda Vs Sri R Ravi Kumar