Allowed

Smt. S. Parvathy v. Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.

Karnataka HC9 Nov 2023MFA/874/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An appeal against an MVC award dismissing a claim for compensation. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned award and remanding the matter for fresh consideration in light of police chargesheet evidence regarding the driver.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; impugned award set aside; matter remanded to Trial Court for fresh consideration within four months.

Smt. S. Parvathy Vs Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:40723 MFA No. 874 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 874 OF 2018 (MV-D)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT.S.PARVATHY W/O LATE MANJUNATH REDDY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

¶9

TEJASVINI D/O ALTE MANJUNATH REDDY AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS MINOR REP BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT KAVITHA D

¶10

R/AT T S A NO 5, D T EXTENSION GAVIPURAM, GUTTAHALLI, KEMPEGOWDANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 019

¶11

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

¶12

VENKATARAMI REDDY AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS

¶13

SMT PARVATHAMMA W/O LATE VENKATARAMI REDDY AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS APPELLANT NOS. 1,3 & 4 ARE R/AT NO 460, 3^RD CROSS, MAGADI MAIN ROAD KAMAKSHIPALYA, VEERESH CONVENTION HALL BENGALURU - 560 079

¶14

… APPELLANTS

¶15

(BY SRI.GURUDEV PRASAD K T.,ADVOCATE)

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:40723 MFA No. 874 of 2018

¶18

AND:

¶19

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GEN. INS. CO. LTD. NO 31, T.B.TOWER I CROSS, NEW MISSION ROAD, ADJACENT TO JAIN COLLEGE AND BENGALURU STOCK EXCHANGE , BENGALURU - 560 002 BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER

¶20

V SUDHAKAR S/O NARASIMHA REDDY @ VENKATA REDDY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/ AT CHALDIGANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST SRINIVASAPURA TALUK

¶21

KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 135

¶22

SRI S N SUDHAKAR S/O NARASIMHA REDDY @ VENKATA REDDY SEEGEHALLI VILLAGE, RANUR POST SRINIVASAPURA TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 135

¶23

… RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; NOTICE TO R-2 IS DISPENSED WITH V.O.D 11.10.2022; NOTICE TO R-3 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

¶24

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.10.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.4174/2009 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT., COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALORE (SCCH-18) PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION ETC.

¶25

¶26

NC: 2023:KHC:40723 MFA No. 874 of 2018

¶27

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

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

This is an appeal filed by the claimant aggrieved by the award passed in MVC No.4174/2007, dated 13.10.2017, by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge Court of Small Causes and MACT, Bengaluru, whereby the court below had dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the deceased himself was a tort-feaser and he is not entitled for any compensation.

¶30

The case of the claimants is that on

¶31

08.01.2009, at about 1.30 p.m., the deceased along with others left for a tour in a tata sumo and one Sudhakar was driving the vehicle. When an auto-rickshaw came from opposite side, in the process of avoiding to hit the autorickshaw, the driver of the tata-sumo drove the same in a negligent manner, and lost control of the vehicle. As a result the tata-sumo turned turtle and Manjunatha Reddy

¶32

¶33

NC: 2023:KHC:40723 MFA No. 874 of 2018

¶34

and Narayana Swamy who were inmates of the car sustained grievous injuries. Later Manjunatha Reddy died on the spot.

¶35

So far as the claim petition filed by the LRs of Narayana Swamy, the insurance company has settled the claim. When it comes to the case of Manjunatha Reddy the court below had dismissed the claim petition on the ground that as per the complaint of one Venkatesh who is an inmate of the car, the deceased Manjunatha Reddy was driving the car at the relevant point of time. As the accident had taken place because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tata-sumo, the court below had dismissed the claim petition.

¶36

Learned counsel appearing for the claimants

¶37

submits that though a complaint was given stating that Manjunath Reddy was driving the car, thereafter the Police have conducted a full-fledged investigation and the

¶38

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:40723 MFA No. 874 of 2018

¶39

investigation reveals that one Sudhakar was driving the car. He further submits that when in respect of one of the claimant the insurance company has satisfied the claim, the claim petition of the LRs of Manjunath Reddy i.e., present claimants cannot be dismissed. It is submitted that the court below without even appreciating the evidence on record has dismissed the claim petition.

¶40

Learned counsel for the insurance company

¶41

submits that the case of the Manjunath Reddy and Narayana Swamy do not stand on the same footing. Narayana Swamy was an inmate of the car, whereas the deceased Manjunath Reddy was the driver of the vehicle

¶42

who has contributed to the accident and therefore the claim petition of Narayaswamy was settled. It is submitted that the FIR lodged by one Venkatesh who was an inmate of the car, clearly shows that at the time of accident that the deceased Manjunath Reddy was driving the car and the court below rightly dismissed the claim petition.

¶43

¶44

NC: 2023:KHC:40723 MFA No. 874 of 2018

¶45

Having heard the learned counsel on either

¶46

side, perused the material on record. The case of the claimant is that at the relevant point of time one Sudhakar was driving the car. The complaint given by Venkatesh discloses that at the relevant point of time one Manjunath Reddy i.e., the deceased was driving the vehicle. Whereas after a full-fledged investigation, the charge-sheet was filed showing that one Sudhakar was driving the vehicle which supports the case of the claimant. It appears from the impugned order that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the important issue involved in this case, apart from who was driving the car.

¶47

7. In the light of the charge-sheet filed by the

¶48

Police and considering all these aspects the appeal is Allowed by setting aside the award in MVC No.4174/2007, dated 13.10.2017 passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge Court of Small Causes and MACT, Bengaluru, and the matter is Remanded back to the court below for fresh

¶49

¶50

NC: 2023:KHC:40723 MFA No. 874 of 2018

¶51

consideration. The court below considering the chargesheet shall give a finding and decide the other issues involved in this case.

¶52

Accordingly, appeal is Allowed by setting

¶53

aside the award dated 13.10.2017 passed in MVC No.4174/2009 on the file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge And MACT, Court Of Small Causes, Bengaluru and matter is remanded back to the Trial court.

¶54

i) Without further notice the parties shall

¶55

appear before the court below on 04.12.2023, and the court below shall decide the matter thereafter within a period of four months from 04.12.2023.

¶56

ii) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court, forthwith without any delay.

¶57

¶58

NC: 2023:KHC:40723 MFA No. 874 of 2018

¶59

iii) No costs.

¶60

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

¶61

closed.

¶62

SD/JUDGE

¶63

JJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 118

Smt. S. Parvathy v. Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. S. Parvathy v. Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.

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 Ravish Kumar Vs Mr. Prabhakar

M/S Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs D Raju

Lokesh Vs H N Byrappa

Harish U M @ Harisha Kumar Vs Shekara C T

Sri. Papanna @ Puttaswamy Vs Sri. G N Ramesh

Smt Madhuri Pandey Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.