Dismissed

Taramati and Ors. v. Vithal and Anr.

Karnataka HC3 Jan 2023MFA/200601/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed a Miscellaneous First Appeal challenging the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's dismissal of a compensation petition. The Tribunal dismissed the claim alleging the accident and vehicle registration were fabricated to claim insurance. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's finding based on credible evidentiary gaps and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed without any relief granted to the appellants.

Taramati and Ors. Vs Vithal and Anr. — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JANUARY 2023

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE T.G.SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

¶8

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.200601/2018(MV)

¶9

Between:

¶10

Taramati W/o Eknath Jhinje Age:38 Years, Occ: Household work

¶11

Navanath S/o Eknath Jhinje Age: 17 Years, Occ: Student

¶12

Somanath S/o Eknath Jhinje Age: 16 Years, Occ: Student

¶13

Alinka D/o Eknath Jhinje Age: 13 Years, Occ: Student

¶14

(Appellants No.2 to 4 are minors

¶15

R/by Taramati Eknath Jhinje as M/G)

¶16

Vishwanath S/o Keraba Jhinje Age: 78 Years, Occ: Nil

¶17

Dropadibai W/o Vishwanath Jhinje Age: 68 Years, Occ: Household work

¶18

¶19

All are R/o: Ter, Tq: Osmanabad Now residing at Jalanagar Vijaypur-586 103

¶20

…Appellants

¶21

(By Sri Koujalagi Chandrakant Laxman, Advocate)

¶22

And:

¶23

Vithal S/o Ramachandra Lengare Age: 48 Years, Occ: Owner of Car Bearing No.MH-13/AZ-6494 At Post: Gopalpur, Tq: Phandrapur Dist: Solapur-413 001

¶24

The Royal Sundaram Alliance Co. Ltd., DB Plaza 3^rd Floor, 47 Whites Road Chennai-600 002(Tamil Nadu State)

¶25

…Respondents

¶26

(Sri C.S.Kalaburgi, Advocate for R2; R1 is served)

¶27

This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, praying to set aside the judgment and award dated:21.12.2017 passed in MVC No.933/2014 on the file of the III Additional District Judge and Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.IV Vijaypura at Vijaypura and allow this appeal by granting the compensation amount of Rs.36,00,000/-only as claimed by the appellants before this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶28

¶29

This appeal coming on for final hearing, this day, SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR J., delivered the following:

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

This appeal is filed against the judgment dated 21.12.2017 in MVC No.933/2014 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IV, Vijayapura.

¶32

We have heard Sri Koujalagi Chandrakant

¶33

Laxman, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri C.S. Kalaburagi, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶34

The appellants being the dependents of

¶35

one Eknath Jhinje preferred claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation of `36,00,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum in connection with death of Eknath Jhinje in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 19.02.2013 at 12 noon on Ter-Bukanwadi road, 1.5 k.m. away from the village Ter. Initially,

¶36

¶37

FIR was registered as per Ex.P.1 to the effect that the accident was caused by unknown person. Even in the mahazar drawn as per Ex.P.3, the name of the driver of the vehicle which caused the accident was not mentioned. When the Tribunal recorded evidence, the claimants examined one Sri Vishwanath Agatrao Kolekar as P.W.2 as an eyewitness to the accident. But the Tribunal did not believe the evidence of P.W.2 that he had seen a car bearing registration No.MH13/AZ-6494 dashing the motorcycle being ridden by the deceased from behind. The finding of Tribunal in this regard is that his evidence appears to be an after thought. The Tribunal also observed that delay of nine days in registration of FIR would amply make it clear that the claimants might have fixed the vehicle just for the sake of claiming compensation and therefore for these reasons Tribunal decided to dismiss the claim petition.

¶38

¶39

4. It is the argument of Sri Koujalagi

¶40

Chandrakant Laxman that the evidence of P.W.2 should not have been disbelieved by the Tribunal. He was an eyewitness to the incident and his deposition clearly discloses that he was riding his motorcycle and the deceased was proceeding infront of him when the accident occurred. This being the evidence of P.W.2, his evidence should have been believed to come to conclusion that the accident did occur and the deceased met death in road traffic accident and therefore the Tribunal ought to have computed the compensation payable to the claimants. He argued for allowing the appeal and remanding the case.

¶41

Sri C.S. Kalaburagi, learned counsel for

¶42

respondent No.2 submits that the Tribunal has come to right conclusion to dismiss the claim petition. If really P.W.2 was an eyewitness, nothing prevented

¶43

¶44

him from going to police station immediately after the accident and giving information to the police about the involvement of the car bearing registration No.MH13/AZ-6494. It is clearly mentioned that the accident was caused by unknown person. P.W.2 has clearly stated on the very same day that he did not go to the police station.

¶45

We have considered the arguments and

¶46

also perused the entire evidence. The evidence of P.W.2 is to be considered to decide whether accident did take place or not. Though in the examination-inchief, he has stated that at the time when he was riding his motorcycle, he saw a car bearing registration No.MH-13/AZ-6494 hit the motorcycle being ridden by the deceased, the manner in which he has given answers in the cross-examination clearly suggests that he was not an eyewitness. It is elicited from him in the cross-examination that he went to the

¶47

¶48

hospital and informed claimant No.1 and one Sri Prabhakar about the accident. Thereafter, FIR was registered at the instance of said Prabhakar. If really Prabhakar came to know from P.W.2 the manner in which the accident took place and the registration of the car which caused the accident, nothing prevented him from disclosing the registration number of the car while lodging FIR. Very conspicuously it is clearly written in the FIR that the accident was caused by unknown car. Vehicle number is also not mentioned in the FIR. Therefore, the information first disclosed before the police plays an important role. Thus seen it may be clearly stated that probably, the car bearing registration No.MH-13/AZ-6494 was fixed in the case only for the purpose of claiming compensation. These being the doubtful circumstances, we have to observe here that the Tribunal has come to proper conclusion

¶49

¶50

to dismiss the claim petition. We do not find any

¶51

merit in this appeal. Therefore appeal is dismissed.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

Taramati and Ors. v. Vithal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Taramati and Ors. v. Vithal and Anr.

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

Revansiddaya Hiremath S/O Basayya Hiremath Vs Shantgouda Biradar the Tahasildar and Anr.

The New India Ass. Co. Ltd. Vs Mounesh and Anr.

Basavaraj Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Smt. Geetha and Ors. Vs Surendra and Anr.

Joel School of Nursing and Anr. Vs Naveen Raj Singh and Anr.

Waman S/O Govind Shinde and Ors. Vs Syed Mehraj S/O. Syed Khaleel and Ors.