Dismissed

Smt R S Sarvamangalamma v. Sri Ramachandra H K

Karnataka HC12 Oct 2023MFA/6017/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Motor Vehicles First Appeal challenged the dismissal of a claim petition seeking compensation for a motor accident death. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that since the deceased was a tortfeasor with a charge sheet filed against him, he could not maintain a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; no costs; Trial Court records returned.

Smt R S Sarvamangalamma Vs Sri Ramachandra H K — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:37380 MFA No. 6017 of 2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6017 OF 2012 (MV-D)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. R. S. SARVAMANGALAMMA, AGE 63 YEARS, W/O H. V. SADASHIVAIAH, RESIDING BEHIND DATTATREYAMANDIRA ROAD, TYAGARAJANAGAR, CHALLAKERE, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SMT. VIJAYA M. N, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SRI. RAMACHANDRA H. K, S/O KARIYAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS,

¶12

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

¶13

1(A). H. J. AMBUJAKSHI, W/O LATE H. K. RAMACHANDRA, R/O GAYATHRI NILAYA, MARUTI NAGAR, BEHIND COURT BUILDING, T.B. CIRCLE, HIRIYUR, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

¶14

THE BRANCH MANAGER ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, BANGALORE, PRESTIGE CORNICHE, 62/1, 2ND FLOOR, RICHMOND ROAD, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA INSURER OF WHITE SAFARI DICOR CAR, BEARING NO. KA-02/MS-456.

¶15

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:37380 MFA No. 6017 of 2012

¶16

THE BRANCH MANAGER

¶17

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE NO. 1 & 2, 1ST FLOOR, MAGANUR COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, B.D. ROAD, CHITRADURGA- 577 501.

¶18

SMT. GEETHA R. S, AGE 35 YEARS, W/O LATE PRASANNAKUMAR H. S, (OWNER OF VEHICLE CAR BEARING NO. KA- 16/M-3294)

¶19

MASTER UDAYAKIRAN H. P, AGE 17 YEARS, S/O LATE PRASANNA KUMAR,

¶20

MASTER KARTHIK H. P, AGE 13 YEARS, S/O LATE PRASANNAKUMAR,

¶21

RESONDENTS 4 TO 6 RESIDING AT DATTATREYAMANDIRA ROAD, TYAGARAJANAGAR, CHALLAKERE, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. A.M. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. H. S. LINGARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R1 AND R4 NOTICE SERVED;

¶24

R5 AND R6 ARE MINORS)

¶25

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 6.4.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.156/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, CHALLAKERE, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

¶26

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

¶27

THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:37380 MFA No. 6017 of 2012

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

This is an appeal filed by the claimants aggrieved by

¶31

the dismissal of M.V.C.No.156/2009 dated 06.04.2011 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Challakere. The claim petition was filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in the accident.

¶32

It is the case of the claimant that on 15.05.2008 at about 4:30 p.m., when the deceased was going in his TATA Indigo car bearing Registration No.KA-16/M-3294 at the extreme side of the road, a white colour Safari Dicor car bearing Registration No.KA-02/MS-456 came from the opposite side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed

¶33

to the TATA Indigo car. The TATA Indigo car is insured by Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. and the Safari Dicor

¶34

car is insured by ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd. As the deceased was at fault, the police after conducting an investigation has filed charge sheet against the deceased. As he himself was the tortfeaser, the Court below had observed that he cannot maintain an application

¶35

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:37380 MFA No. 6017 of 2012

¶36

under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and dismissed the claim petition.

¶37

Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance

¶38

Company who insured the TATA Indigo car submits that they have already paid an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the family of the deceased under Personal Accident Coverage.

¶39

Learned counsel appearing for the claimants

¶40

submits that the Court below solely basing on the police records had dismissed the claim petition. It is submitted that looking at the accident, the Court below ought to have held that even the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., Safari Dicor car is at fault and ought not to have dismissed the claim petition.

¶41

The claimants have examined PW.2, who is the

¶42

eye witness according to them. But no evidence was placed on record stating that he has witnessed the accident. As the claimants have failed to adduce any evidence to show that the driver of the opposite vehicle was negligent, the Court below had rightly dismissed the

¶43

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:37380 MFA No. 6017 of 2012

¶44

claim petition and admittedly in this case under Personal Accident Coverage, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- is already

¶45

paid to the claimants as the deceased is the owner of the vehicle. In view of the same, this Court finds no reason to interfere the same.

¶46

Accordingly, the appeal of the claimants is

¶47

dismissed.

¶48

i. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court records to

¶49

the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed

¶50

by this Court forthwith without any delay.

¶51

ii. No costs.

¶52

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall

¶53

stand closed.

¶54

SD/JUDGE

¶55

MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5 CT: BHK

Smt R S Sarvamangalamma v. Sri Ramachandra H K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt R S Sarvamangalamma v. Sri Ramachandra H K

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

Master Harish S/O Late Shivaraj Vs the Divisional Manager

Smt H S Manjula Vs S Murugesh

Raju S/O Late Venkatesh Vs Divisional Manager