Dismissed

Master Harish S/O Late Shivaraj v. the Divisional Manager

Karnataka HC12 Oct 2023MFA/4000/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed an appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's decision to reject a compensation claim totaling Rs. 3 lakhs. The court upheld the lower tribunal's finding, which believed the accident details were fabricated due to procedural irregularities and collusion between the claimant and the police.

What did the court decide?

The appeal of the appellant is dismissed with no costs.

Master Harish S/O Late Shivaraj Vs the… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:37610 MFA No. 4000 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4000 OF 2012

¶7

(MV-I)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MASTER HARISH S/O LATE SHIVARAJ AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS R/AT KHB ROAD, 4TH CROSS PRAKASH APARTMENT, BHAVANI STEEL BANGALORE

¶10

SINECE THE APPELLANT IS MINOR REP BY MOTHER/ NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. LAKSHMI

¶11

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

¶12

(BY SRI. PRAKASH H.C., ADVOCATE FOR; SRI M. ANIL KUMAR.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE 07, NO. 1 SHANKAR HOUSE 3RD FLOOR RMV EXTENSION, MEKHRI CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 80

¶16

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:37610 MFA No. 4000 of 2012

¶17

SUJATHA

¶18

W/O MUNIRAJ MAJOR, RAMESH KARDANAHALLI DOORAVANINAGAR BANGALORE - 47

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. JANARDHAN REDDY.,ADVOCATE FOR R1;

¶21

R2 - NOTICE D/W V/O DTD: 03.02.2023)

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:28.01.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.8940/2008 ON THE FILE OF MEMBER, MACT, IV ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

¶23

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL 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.8940/2008 dated 28.01.2011 on

¶26

the file of the IV Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes & MACT, Bangalore.

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:37610 MFA No. 4000 of 2012

¶28

The claim petition is filed seeking compensation

¶29

of an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained

¶30

by the claimant. It is the case of the claimant that on 21.08.2008 at about 4.30 p.m. when he was playing in front of his house near Prakash Apartment at Pushpanjali Talkies, Sultanpalya, R.T. Nagar, all of a sudden a TATA Sumo came in high speed in a rash and negligent manner

¶31

and dashed to the claimant. As a result, he suffered grievous injuries all over the body and he was taken to Shanmuga Nursing Home and then to Boring Hospital,

¶32

Bangalore. The court below had dismissed the petition observing that according to the claimant, the alleged accident took place on 21.08.2008 at 4.30 p.m. and the complaint was lodged on 24.08.2008 at 3.10 p.m. PW-3 who received the complaint immediately rushed to the place of occurrence in between 4.30 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. on the very same day prepared the spot mahazar and sketch

¶33

as per Ex.P-5 and Ex.P-4, collects the wound certificate, concludes the investigation and charge sheets the TATA Sumo driver for the offences under section 279, 338 of IPC

¶34

¶35

NC: 2023:KHC:37610 MFA No. 4000 of 2012

¶36

and 134 (a)(b) read with Section 187 of the MV Act. The court further observed in the cross-examination it was elicited that though PW-3 received MLC intimation on the next day of the accident and constable proceeded to the Hospital and recorded the statement of PW-1, no case was registered as the said lady requested them not to register, since matter is likely to be settled. On 24.08.2008, PW-1 came to the police station and lodged the complaint, but not explained the reasons for the delay. It is observed that on 23.08.2008, one day prior to the date of registering the complaint, notice was issued under section 133 of MV Act to the owner of the vehicle and on the very same day he received the reply. The court below observed that it is interesting that before any case was registered he ventures into the investigation and completes part of it. The court observed that on perusal of the charge sheet Ex.P-3 shows that there is collusion between the police and the claimant and the owner of the vehicle and accordingly the court below has dismissed the

¶37

¶38

NC: 2023:KHC:37610 MFA No. 4000 of 2012

¶39

claim petition disbelieving the accident and involvement of the vehicle.

¶40

Learned counsel for the claimant submits that

¶41

mere delay in lodging the complaint cannot be a ground for dismissal of the petition. It is stated that after full fledged investigation, the police have filed the charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle and the said aspect was not considered by the court below. It is submitted that the court below without considering the evidence has dismissed the claim petition.

¶42

4. Learned counsel for the insurance company

¶43

submits that as per the extract of MLC register, it is mentioned that the vehicle that is involved in the accident is a Car. When it comes to the complaint, it is mentioned as TATA Sumo. The police without verifying any of the records, in collusion with the claimant have filed the charge sheet. He submits that the claimant by adducing

¶44

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:37610 MFA No. 4000 of 2012

¶45

the evidence has to substantiate its case with regard to the accident and the involvement of the vehicle. As in this

¶46

case, the collusion between the parties is clear, the court

¶47

below had rightly dismissed the claim petition.

¶48

This court having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. In the preceding paragraph this court has discussed the reasoning basing on which the court below has dismissed the claim petition. When the accident had taken place on 21.08.2008 and the complaint was given on 24.08.2008, the police had started the investigation and issued the notice to the owner of the vehicle under section 133 of MV

¶49

Act and on the same day received the reply, they completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet. All these things clearly shows that the said vehicle is not involved in the accident and with the collusion, the claim is made and this court finds no reasons to interfere. Accordingly appeal is dismissed.

¶50

¶51

NC: 2023:KHC:37610 MFA No. 4000 of 2012

¶52

Accordingly, the appeal of the claimant is

¶53

Dismissed.

¶54

(a) 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.

¶55

(b) No Costs.

¶56

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

stand closed.

SD/JUDGE

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

Master Harish S/O Late Shivaraj v. the Divisional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Master Harish S/O Late Shivaraj v. the Divisional 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

Ayub Khan Vs Sri Katriyesan

Mahadevaiah Vs H M Devaraju

Sri Arun Kumar Shetty Vs Sri Syed Zainulla Bussin Daniyal

Smt H S Manjula Vs S Murugesh

Raju S/O Late Venkatesh Vs Divisional Manager

Smt R S Sarvamangalamma Vs Sri Ramachandra H K