Allowed

Master Sanjay D S v. Sri Manjunath B N

Karnataka HC1 Dec 2023WP/6396/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought to quash an order refusing him permission to lead evidence in a Motor Vehicles claim. The High Court set aside the impugned order and permitted him to apply to lead evidence, noting he is now 18 years old and no eyewitnesses are available.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 07.02.2023 set aside; Petitioner permitted to file an application seeking permission to lead evidence before the Tribunal.

Master Sanjay D S Vs Sri Manjunath B N — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:43410 WP No. 6396 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶6

WRIT PETITION No. 6396 OF 2023 (GM-AC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MASTER SANJAY D. S., AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, OCC-STUDENT,

¶9

SINCE MINOR: HENCE REPTD., BY HIS FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, SRI SHIVAPPA, S/O MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS OCC-COOLIE, R/AT LAKKADIKOTE, BILUVALA, CHIKKAMANGALURU KADUR-577548.

¶10

Digitally signed by VALLI M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. LATUR SURESH MAHALINGAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SRI MANJUNATH B. N., S/O NANJUNDAPPA, BAGADAHALLI, BIRUR HOBLI, KADUR TALUK-577116.

¶15

THE MANAGER , M/S THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, NO.9/2, MAHALAKSHMI COMPLEX, M. G. ROAD, 2^ND FLOOR

¶16

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:43410 WP No. 6396 of 2023

¶17

OPP. AJANTHA HOTEL, BENGALURU-560001.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI PRADEEP S., ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 is served, but unrepresented)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 07.02.2023 AS PER ANNEXURE-C PASSED IN MVC NO.4358/2021 ON THE FILE OF MACT, OF (SCCH-NO-12) & ETC.

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner is challenging the order dated 07.02.2023 passed in MVC No.4358/2021 by the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.

¶24

2. Brief facts.

¶25

The petitioner, while traveling on a motorcycle bearing Regn.No.KA-66/K-2636, at about 7.30 a.m., near Bridge, Lakkadikote Village, Kadur Taluk, Chikkamangaluru, a Mahindra Supro vehicle bearing Regn.No.KA-66-2140 moving from opposite direction with high speed in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against motorcycle, due to which, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:43410 WP No. 6396 of 2023

¶27

taken to Kadur Government Hospital. Later shifted to Megann Hospital at Shivamogga, again to Mathru Hospital at Bengaluru. Further, the petitioner was admitted to NIMHANS Hospital for further treatment and then shifted to Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru. The petitioner being minor represented through his father natural guardian filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The evidence of the father on behalf of minor claimant has been recorded by the Tribunal. The claimant made a request to the Tribunal to permit the victim/petitioner-Master Sanjay to lead evidence. The Tribunal rejected the same holding that the father has already deposed as PW.1 on behalf of minor and the petitioner cannot be permitted to lead evidence, as he is a minor.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that eyewitnesses to the accident are not co-operating in leading evidence before the Tribunal. Except the victim, there is no eyewitness available to lead evidence. Refusal to permit the victim/petitioner to lead evidence causes hardship.

¶29

On the other hand, Sri B Pradeep, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that as the father has been examined

¶30

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC:43410 WP No. 6396 of 2023

¶32

on behalf of the minor, again permitting the petitioner would lead to two persons leading same evidence, which is not permissible.

¶33

Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and respondent No.2.

¶34

The reason assigned by the Tribunal for refusing permission to the petitioner to lead evidence is, he was a minor as on the date. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as on the date, the petitioner has completed 18 years of age. Considering the circumstance that eyewitnesses to the accident are not coming forward to depose before the Tribunal, it would cause hardship to the rights of the claimant.

¶35

The contention of respondent No.2 that minor cannot be permitted to depose before the Court is kept open in the changed circumstances.

¶36

Considering the facts and circumstances and also to balance equity, it is just and proper to permit the petitioner to file an application seeking permission of the Tribunal to allow him to lead his evidence. Hence, the following:

¶37

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:43410 WP No. 6396 of 2023

¶38

Order

¶39

i) The petition is disposed of.

¶40

ii) The impugned order dated 07.02.2023 passed in MVC No.4358/2021 by the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside.

¶41

iii) The petitioner is permitted to file an application before the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, in MVC No.4358/2021 seeking

¶42

permission to lead his evidence as a witness.

¶43

No order as to costs.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

MV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43

Master Sanjay D S v. Sri Manjunath B N

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Master Sanjay D S v. Sri Manjunath B N

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

Smt D Lalitha Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Shri S Manimaran Vs Smt D Amudha

Mr Anish Sharma Vs Mrs Anamika Sharma @ Anamika Kalia

P v Prakash Vs Smt Drakshayanamma

Tabriaz Pasha @ Tabriaz, Vs State of Karnataka

Rajesh Kumar Shetty, Vs T Subbaya Shetty