Allowed

Smt Kamalamma v. Rudramma

Karnataka HC25 Nov 2024MFA/180/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed an appeal against compensation awarded for Rangaswamy's death. The court held that without evidence establishing the death resulted from the use of a motor vehicle, proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act were without jurisdiction, and the claim petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The claim petition for compensation stands dismissed; the appeal filed by the vehicle owner is allowed, and any amount deposited is to be refunded to the owner.

Smt Kamalamma Vs Rudramma — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:48842 MFA No. 180 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 525 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 180 OF 2019 (MV-D)

¶7

C/W

¶8

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 525 OF 2020 (MV-D)

¶9

IN MFA No. 180/2019

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SMT KAMALAMMA W/O LATE BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O RAMAGHATTA VILLAGE, HOLALKERE TALUK.

¶12

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

LAKSHMIDEVI D/O LATE BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O RAMAGHATTA VILLAGE, HOLALKERE TALUK.

¶14

RATHNAMMA W/O SHIVANNA, D/O LATE BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O DUMMI VILLAGE, HOLALKERE TALUK-577 531

¶15

…APPELLANTS

¶16

(BY SRI. SPOORTHI HEGDE., ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

RUDRAMMA W/O PARAMESHWARAPPA,

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:48842 MFA No. 180 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 525 of 2020

¶20

AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O RAMGHATTA VILLAGE, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 531.

¶21

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO,LTD., AVK COLLEGE ROAD, DAVANAGERE-577 001

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. GIRISH B BALADARE., ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI. RAVISH BENNI., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶24

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:24.03.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.890/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, MACT, HOLALKERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶25

IN MFA NO. 525/2020:

¶26

BETWEEN:

¶27

RUDRAMMA W/O PARAMESHWARAAP, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O RAMAGHATTA VILLAGE, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 577501.

¶28

...APPELLANT

¶29

(BY SRI. GIRISH B BALADARE., ADVOCATE)

¶30

AND:

¶31

KAMALAMMA W/O LATE BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶32

LAKSHMIDEVI D/O LATE BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

¶33

- 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:48842 MFA No. 180 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 525 of 2020

¶34

R-1 & R-2 BOTH ARE R/AT RAMAGATTA VILLAGE, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 577501.

¶35

RATHNAMMA W/O LATE SHIVAMMA, D/O LATE BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O DUMMI VILLAGE, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 577501.

¶36

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., AVK COLLEGE ROAD, DAVANGERE 577001.

¶37

...RESPONDENTS

¶38

(BY SRI. SPOORTHI HEGDE., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3; SRI. RAVISH BENNI., ADVOCATE FOR R-4)

¶39

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDE SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 24.03.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.890/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOLALKERE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.4,83,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.

¶40

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶41

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶42

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:48842 MFA No. 180 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 525 of 2020

¶43

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶44

The claimants are in appeal being dissatisfied with the compensation of Rs.4,83,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for the death of Rangaswamy a 30 year old.

¶45

The owner of the vehicle Rudramma is also in appeal contending that the Tribunal could not have come to the conclusion that an accident occurred to the Tractor-Trailer that she owned, due to which Rangaswamy was killed.

¶46

The Tribunal has recorded a finding that an accident did occur taking the life of said Rangaswamy and the basis for this reasoning is the fact that a charge sheet had been filed by the police after investigation indicating that an accident had occurred.

¶47

The Tribunal has also proceeded to exonerate the insurer on the ground that the Tractor-Trailer had been entrusted to a minor and, therefore, the insurer would not be liable to pay the compensation.

¶48

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:48842 MFA No. 180 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 525 of 2020

¶49

Rudramma, the owner of the vehicle filed objections contending that Rangaswami was in an intoxicated state and had fallen from the Tractor-Trailer, sustaining the injuries. It was also contended that because of this negligence on the part of Rangaswamy, she would not be liable for compensation.

¶50

The claimants along with the claim petition produced the FIR which was registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by the sister of the deceased who was incidentally the 2^nd claimant before the Tribunal. The said complaint reads as follows:

¶51

“£Á£ÀÄ ªÉÄ®ÌAqÀ «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è £À£Àß CtÚ gÀAUÀ¸Áé«Ä £À£Àß vÁ¬Ä PÀªÀÄ®ªÀÄä EªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ PÀÆ°¬ÄAzÀ fÃªÀ£À ¸ÁV¸ÀÄwÛzÉÃªÀÅ »ÃVgÀÄªÀUÉÎ ¢£ÁAPÀ 06/07/2014 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÁAiÀÄAPÁ® 5.00 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £ÀªÀÄä UÁæªÀÄzÀ ²ªÀPÀÄªÀiÁgï ©£ï NAPÁgÀ¥Àà °AUÁAiÀÄÛgÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ £À£Àß CtÚ gÀAUÀ¸ÁéªÀÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß mÁæöåPÀÖgï PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌAzÀÄ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀ£ÀÄß CªÀ£À eÉÆvÉAiÀÄ°è

¶52

- 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:48842 MFA No. 180 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 525 of 2020

¶53

ªÉÆÃºÀ£À vÀAzÉ NAPÁgÀ¥Àà £ÀgÀ¹AºÀ¥Àà ©£ï gÁd¥Àà J.PÉ d£ÁAU À EªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ §AzÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä CtÚ£ÁzÀ gÀAUÀ¸Áé«ÄAiÀÄÄ gÁwæ 11 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄªÁzÀgÀÆ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §A¢gÀzÀ PÁgÀt £ÁªÀÅ PÁAiÀÄÄwÛzÉÝÃªÀÅ CzÉÃ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£É ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄªÀgÁzÀ ¥ÀÄ¤Ãvï ©Ã£ï NAPÁgÀ¥Àà EªÀgÀÄ §AzÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä CtÚ gÀAUÀ¸Áé«Ä ¸ÀvÀÄÛ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÁÛ£ÉAzÀÄ ºÉtªÀ£ÀÄß læöåPÀÖgï mÉæöÊ®gï ºÉÆ¼À®ÌgÉ D¸ÀàvÉæ ªÀÄÄA¨sÁUÀ mÁæöåPÀÖgï mÉæöÊ®gï ¤®è¹ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ CAvÀ w½¹zÀgÀÄ DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß vÁ¬Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÀgÀÄ ªÀÄzsÀågÁwæ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 12-00 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ ºÉÆÃwÛUÉ ºÉÆ¼À®ÌgÉ §AzÀÄ £ÉÆÃqÀ¯ÁV mÁæöåPÀÖgï mÉæöÊ®gï £À°è £À£Àß CtÚ£ÁzÀ gÀAUÀ¸Áé«ÄAiÀÄ ªÀÄÈvÀ zÉÃºÀ«gÀÄvÀÛzÉ CªÀ£À ªÀÄÄRPÉÌ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ vÀ¯ÉUÉ dfÓzÀ gÀPÀÛ UÁAiÀÄUÉ¼ÁVgÀÄvÀÛªÉ £ÀªÀÄä CtÚ gÀAUÀ¸ÁÚ«ÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄ AiÀÄªÀÅzÉÆÃ DAiÀÄÄzsÀzÀ¢AzÀ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ ¸Á¬Ä¹gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ§gÀvÀÛzÉ ªÉÄÃ¯É w½¹zÀ £ÀªÀÄä UÁæªÀÄzÀªÁgÁzÀ ²ªÀPÀÄªÀiÁgÀ vÀAzÉ NAPÁgÀ¥Àà EªÀgÀÄ GzÉÝÃ±À ¥ÉÆÃªÀðPÀªÁV PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌAzÀÄ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆÃAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV PÉÆÃ¯É ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ F WÀl£ÉAiÀÄ »AzÉ £ÀªÀÄä CtÚ£ÁzÀ gÀAUÀ¸ÁÚ«ÄUÀÆ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²ªÀPÀÆªÀÄgÀ ©£À NAPÁgÀ¥Àà EªÀjUÀÆ UÁæªÀÄzÀ CAUÀrAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÉAiÀÄÆ UÀ¯ÁmÉ DVvÀÄÛ F zÉéÃµÀªÀ£ÀÄß ElÄÖPÉÆÃAqÀÄ

¶54

- 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:48842 MFA No. 180 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 525 of 2020

¶55

²ªÀPÀÄªÀiÁgÀ ©£À NAPÁgÀ¥Àà EªÀgÀÄ PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ F «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀªÀiÁdzÀ §AzsÀÄUÀ½UÉ w½¹ vÀqÀªÁV §AzÀÄ E ¦AiÀÄðzÀÄ £ÀqÉ¸ÀÄwÛzÉÝªÉ £ÀªÀÄä CtÚªÁzÀ gÀAUÀ¸Áé«ÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌAzÀÄ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV PÉÆÃ¯É ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀ F ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀgÀªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ PÁ£ÀÄ£ÀÄ jÃw PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¹ PÉÆÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÉÃzÀÄ PÉÃ½ PÀÆ¼ÀÄîvÉÛª.É”

¶56

A reading of Ex.P.2 clearly indicates that the 2^nd claimant i.e., the sister of the deceased alleged that her brother was murdered by Shivakumar who had taken him in the guise of engaging his services for loading and unloading sand. This complaint was lodged on 07.07.2014 at about 12.30 p.m. i.e., about 20 hours after the fact of Rangaswamy's death became known to her.

¶57

As could be seen from the complaint also, there is no mention of any accident which occurred to the Tractor-Trailer which resulted in the death of Rangaswamy. The averments in the complaint

¶58

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:48842 MFA No. 180 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 525 of 2020

¶59

indicate that her family was informed that her brother was dead and his body was lying in a Tractor-Trailer at the Holalkere hospital and they immediately went to the hospital where they saw the deceased Rangaswamy with severe facial injuries. If this statement were to be accepted, it is obvious she had never made any allegation or even an assertion that the accident occurred as a result of an accident to the Tractor-Trailer.

¶60

It must also be stated here that this complainant i.e., the 2^nd claimant did not chose to examine herself as a witness to explain as to why she gave such kind of a complaint. On the other hand, the mother of the deceased was examined and she did not dispute the fact that a complaint was lodged by her daughter.

¶61

In this regard, a reference may also be made to the postmortem report which also corroborates the statement of the 2^nd claimant that the deceased had

¶62

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:48842 MFA No. 180 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 525 of 2020

¶63

severe injuries on his face and the cause of death was due to the head injuries sustained.

¶64

It is therefore clear that the complaint and the postmortem report, if read together, only indicates that the deceased died due to the head injury. There is no other evidence to indicate as to how this head injury occurred.

¶65

Learned counsel for the claimant sought to place reliance on the statements given by the coemployees of the deceased which were given in the criminal proceedings. It is, however, to be stated here that none of the co-employees were examined before the Tribunal to indicate the manner in which the accident occurred and to establish that the death was as a result of the use of the Tractor-Trailer. To put it differently, there was absolutely no evidence on record to indicate as to how the accident occurred which resulted in the death of Rangaswamy.

¶66

NC: 2024:KHC:48842 MFA No. 180 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 525 of 2020

¶67

10 -

¶68

In a proceeding under the Motor Vehicles act, unless it is primarily established that an accident occurred as a result of the use of the motor vehicle, the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act itself would be one without jurisdiction.

¶69

The reliance placed on the charge sheet to indicate that the Police changed their mind and came to the conclusion that an accident did occur cannot be accepted, especially in light of the complaint lodged by the 2^nd claimant herself that her brother was murdered.

¶70

None of the witnesses cited in the charge sheet were examined before the Tribunal nor was the Investigating Officer who filed the charge sheet was examined to substantiate the assertion that an accident occurred as a use of the Tractor-Tailor resulting in death of Rangaswamy.

¶71

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:48842 MFA No. 180 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 525 of 2020

¶72

In my view, in the absence of clear evidence that the accident occurred due to the use of a motor vehicle which resulted in the death of Rangaswamy, the entire proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act was without jurisdiction. Consequently, the claim petition stands dismissed . In the result, the appeal filed by the owner is

¶73

allowed .

¶74

The amount, if any, deposited by the owner should be refunded to the owner.

¶75

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

¶76

GSR

¶77

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Smt Kamalamma v. Rudramma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Kamalamma v. Rudramma

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

The Bengaluru Garlic Merchants Association Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Prajna v H Vs Sri Vijay Shrinivas Gowda

Smt Prajna v H Vs Sri Vijay Srinivas Gowda

Kavitha Vs Naveen Kumar. N. S.

Sri P B Mahadevappa Vs Sri Shashidhar S D

Narayana Murthy Vs Divisional Controller