Remanded

Sri. A.C. Sanjay v. Sri. N. Hanumantha Kumar

Karnataka HC15 Dec 2023MFA/4477/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed appeals against dismissal of compensation claims by two accident claimants. The court set aside the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award and remanded the matter for fresh consideration with permission to adduce further evidence, addressing concerns about untraceable unknown vehicle and driver negligence.

What did the court decide?

Award set aside; matter remanded to Tribunal for fresh consideration with permission to adduce further evidence from both parties.

Sri. A.C. Sanjay Vs Sri. N. Hanumantha Kumar — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:46071 MFA No. 4477 of 2019

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4477 OF 2019 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4479 OF 2019 (MV-I)

¶7

IN MFA NO. 4477/2019

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. A. C. SANJAY, S/O CHANDRA SHEKAR, NOW AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.47, KOLAMASANAPALLI VILLAGE & POST, PALAMANER MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT (A.P).

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. GOPAL KRISHNA N, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

SRI. N. HANUMANTHA KUMAR, S/O H. NARAYANASHETTY, MAJOR IN AGE, RESIDING AT NO.128, 1ST MAIN ROAD, AGARA-SARJAPUR MAIN ROAD, NEAR LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA TEMPLE, BENGALURU - 560 102.

¶15

THE BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., GOLDENL HEIGHTS, 4TH FLOOR, 59TH 'C' CROSS, 4TH M BLOCK,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:46071 MFA No. 4477 of 2019

¶18

RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. P.S. KAILAS SHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. A.N. KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.10.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.6701/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, (SCCH-14), DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

¶22

IN MFA NO. 4479/2019

¶23

BETWEEN:

¶24

KUMARI. A. MEENA, D/O A. DHAMODHAR, NOW AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOLAMASANAPALLI VILLAGE AND POST, PALAMANER MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. (A.P.)

¶25

…APPELLANT

¶26

(BY SRI. GOPAL KRISHNA N, ADVOCATE)

¶27

AND:

¶28

SRI. N. HANUMANTHA KUMAR, S/O H. NARAYANASHETTY, MAJOR IN AGE, RESIDING AT NO.128, 1ST MAIN ROAD, AGARA-SARJAPUR MAIN ROAD, NEAR LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA TEMPLE, BENGALURU - 560 102.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2023:KHC:46071 MFA No. 4477 of 2019

¶31

THE BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., GOLDENL HEIGHTS, 4TH FLOOR, 59TH 'C' CROSS, 4TH M BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SRI. P.S. KAILAS SHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. A.N. KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶34

¶35

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

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

This is an appeal filed by the claimants aggrieved by the award passed in M.V.C.No.6701/2016 and M.V.C.No.6702/2016 dated 16.10.2018 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-14). The two inmates of the car have filed the claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming the

¶38

¶39

NC: 2023:KHC:46071 MFA No. 4477 of 2019

¶40

compensation of an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- for the

¶41

injuries sustained by the claimants in the road accident.

¶42

It is their case that on 13.12.2015 at about 11:30 p.m., the claimants were traveling towards Palamner town from Bengaluru City in an Omni Car which belongs to the father of the minor claimant in M.V.C.No.6701/2016, who had driven the same at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against one unknown lorry, which was going ahead of it and hit to the back side of the omni car. Due to the said impact, both the claimants had sustained grievous injuries. The accident had occurred due to the carelessness and rash and negligent driving of the driver of the omni car and the driver of the unknown vehicle.

¶43

The Court below had dismissed the claim petition mainly on the ground that they are attributing the negligence to the driver of the unknown vehicle and they cannot claim compensation against the owner and insurer

¶44

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:46071 MFA No. 4477 of 2019

¶45

of the vehicle as they are not able to trace out the said unknown vehicle. Aggrieved thereby, the claimants are before this Court.

¶46

Learned counsel appearing for the claimants

¶47

submits that on 13.12.2015, the accident had taken place and on 14.12.2015, the complaint was given by an unknown person. In the complaint also, it is stated that when the unknown vehicle was proceeding in front of the

¶48

car and without any indication, when he had applied the brakes, the driver of the omni car, as he was driving the car without maintaining a distance had dashed to the same. It is submitted that it is their case that there is

¶49

negligence on the part of both the vehicles. Even if the said vehicle is not traceable, when they have adduced the evidence of PW.1, PW.2 - the claimants and PW.3 - the

¶50

eye witness, the Court below ought to have considered that there is composite negligence on the part of the driver of both the vehicles and ought to have granted the compensation. Instead of doing so, the Court below as if

¶51

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:46071 MFA No. 4477 of 2019

¶52

there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the omni car had dismissed the claim petition. It is submitted that

¶53

the Court below without evaluating the evidence in its proper perspective had dismissed the claim petition.

¶54

Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance

¶55

Company submits that they have not examined the driver of the Omni car and the offending vehicle is not traceable. It is for the purpose of claiming the compensation they have developed the case stating that there is some mistake on the part of the driver of the omni car. As per the complaint also, the main negligence is attributed to the driver of the unknown vehicle, which is not clear according to them. Once they say that it is a lorry and they also say that it is a canter. Learned counsel submits that the Court below had rightly considered the evidence and dismissed the claim petition.

¶56

Having heard the learned counsel on either side,

¶57

perused the entire material on record. In this case, in the

¶58

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:46071 MFA No. 4477 of 2019

¶59

complaint and evidence, it is their consistent case that two vehicles are moving, the unknown vehicle without any indication had applied the sudden brake and as the driver of the omni car was not maintaining any distance, he went and dashed to the lorry. In that process, the claimants had sustained the injuries. In the cases of this nature, generally, in normal parlance, the Court would consider that if the driver of the omni car was vigilant and if he was maintaining a safe distance, even if the sudden brake was applied, he could have avoided the accident. The Court below without going into the said aspect had dismissed the claim petition. Considering all these aspects and in the interest of both the parties, this Court deems it appropriate to remand the matter to the Court below whereby both the parties are permitted to adduce further evidence by examining the concerned and basing on that the Court shall pass appropriate orders.

¶60

Accordingly, the award passed in M.V.C.No.6701/2016 and M.V.C.No.6702/2016 dated

¶61

¶62

NC: 2023:KHC:46071 MFA No. 4477 of 2019

¶63

16.10.2018 is set aside and the matter is remanded back

¶64

to the Court below for fresh consideration.

¶65

i. Without further notice, the parties shall appear

¶66

before the Tribunal on 10.01.2024 and the Tribunal shall

¶67

decide the case within 6 months from 10.01.2024.

¶68

Sd/JUDGE

¶69

MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 81 CT: BHK

Sri. A.C. Sanjay v. Sri. N. Hanumantha Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. A.C. Sanjay v. Sri. N. Hanumantha Kumar

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

Sri. P Prashanth Vs the Managing Director

Mr. Ibrahim Vs the Manaing Director

Mr. Parveez Ahmed Vs the Managing Director

The Proprietor / Owner Vs Smt Anitha

Pramod Kumar G C Vs Managing Director/Division Controller

Ramesh Vs Sandeep