Dismissed

Ramakrishna v. Susheel Kumar

Karnataka HC5 Dec 2023MFA/458/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a miscellaneous first appeal filed by a scooter rider challenging the dismissal of his compensation claim. Upholding the Tribunal's finding that the accident was caused by the claimant's own negligence in deviating into the opposing lane, the court held there were no grounds to interfere with the award. The appeal is dismissed with costs none.

What did the court decide?

Compensation claim for Rs.1,50,000 dismissed; Registry directed to return trial record to Tribunal.

Ramakrishna Vs Susheel Kumar — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:44038 MFA No. 458 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 458 OF 2017 (MV-I)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

RAMAKRISHNA S/O LATE KALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT NO.1844, 7^TH CROSS, SUBASH NAGARA MANDYA CITY -571 401

¶7

…APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI. PRAKASHA H C.,ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

SUSHEEL KUMAR S/O NAGARAJU.K MAJOR R/AT 18^TH CROSS, V.V.NAGARA KALLAHALLI, MANDYA -571 401 R.C.OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE NO.KA-09 EL-5015

¶11

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

¶12

MANICKAM K MAJOR R/AT NO.24, 4^TH MAIN, 10^TH CROSS, VUJAYANAGARA 1^ST STAGE MYSURU -570 001 POLICY HOLDER OF MOTOR CUCLE NO.KA.09-EL-5015

¶13

THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., M.H.BORAIAH BUILDING V.V.ROAD, MANDYA TALUK -571 401 (POLICY ISSUING OFFICE NO.1

¶14

¶15

NC: 2023:KHC:44038 MFA No. 458 of 2017

¶16

THEJAS COMPLEX, CSI SAYYAJIRAO ROAD MYSURU :570 001

¶17

THE BRANCH MANAGER M/S. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., MANDYA BRANCH, NO.1200, 2^ND CROSS, ASHOK NAGARA, MANDYA-571 401.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS (APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED V.O.D 20.4.2023; NOTICE TO R- 2 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED; BY SRI.SHASHISHEKHAR S., ADVOCATE FOR R-3; SRI ANOOP SEETHARAMA RAO., ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶19

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.05.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.390/2010 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MANDYA, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION ETC.

¶20

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

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

This is an appeal filed by the claimant aggrieved by

¶23

the dismissal of MVC.No.390/2010 dated 31.05.2016 on the file of the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Mandya.

¶24

The claim petition is filed under section 166 of the MV Act seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in

¶25

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:44038 MFA No. 458 of 2017

¶26

the accident. The case of the claimant is that on 03.05.2009 he was proceeding on his Bajaj Chetak

¶27

Scooter, at about 9.35 p.m. a motor cycle driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from opposite direction hit the scooter causing the accident. On account of the accident, the claimant had sustained the injuries on the right thigh, left knee and face. The Tribunal had dismissed the claim petition observing that initially a complaint was lodged by the claimant. After a full fledged investigation, they filed the report before the court, wherein the claimant was arrayed as an accused. The court below had observed that the accident had taken place on account of his own fault and he cannot claim damages for his own wrong. Further even as per the IMV report, scooter of the claimant was damaged. The front mud guard, shock absorber, bumper was pressed inside and damaged. Front wheel disk and chassis were also found damaged. The court below observed that the spot where the accident is said to have taken place would on the face of it indicate the rashness on the part of the

¶28

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:44038 MFA No. 458 of 2017

¶29

claimant. Considering all these aspects, the court below has held that the claimant himself was at fault, and because of his negligence accident had taken place and dismissed the claim petition.

¶30

Learned counsel for the claimant submits that

¶31

the court below without appreciating the evidence on record, had dismissed the claim petition. It is submitted in the charge sheet, the rider of the offending vehicle was also shown as accused. He submits that the claim petition is filed by the rider of the opposite vehicle and compensation was awarded to him. It is submitted that the court below ought to have considered the application on the merits of the matter and ought to have granted the compensation.

¶32

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company submits that the court below had rightly dismissed the claim petition as the accident had taken place because of the negligent on the

¶33

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:44038 MFA No. 458 of 2017

¶34

part of the claimant who has come from extreme left side to the extreme right side of the road by taking deviation and the claimant being at fault cannot claim compensation. It is submitted that no grounds are made seeking interference with the order passed by the Tribunal.

¶35

Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the entire material on record. In this case, initially the complaint was given by the claimant stating that the driver of the offending vehicle was responsible for the accident. After conducting a full fledged investigation, the claimant is arrayed as accused. As per the investigation, he had gone to the extreme right side and he contributed to the accident. That itself shows that the claimant himself is responsible for the accident. Then coming to the charge sheet, the other accused, driver of

¶36

the offending vehicle was also arrayed as an accused neither from the charge sheet-Ex.P-4, this court can understand the submission of the counsel for the

¶37

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:44038 MFA No. 458 of 2017

¶38

appellant, nor the claim petition or the award passed by the Tribunal in respect of the driver of the other vehicle is

¶39

not placed before this court. In that view of the matter,

¶40

this court finds no reasons to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal.

¶41

Accordingly, the appeal of the claimant is

¶42

Dismissed .

¶43

(i) 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.

¶44

(ii) No Costs.

¶45

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

closed.

SD/JUDGE

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 72

Ramakrishna v. Susheel Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramakrishna v. Susheel Kumar

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

Mr Vemanarayana Vs the Managing Director

Vijayakumar B.R Vs B.G. Paramesh

Ananda. K Vs Narayana Murthy

The Manager Vs the Divisional Controller

Sri Jagadeesh D S Vs M/S V2 Care Facilities

Murthy G H Vs Smt Yasmin