Dismissed

Sri. Moses. J v. Sri. Karthik Murali

Karnataka HC3 Apr 2024MFA/2755/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a miscellaneous first appeal, the High Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against the dismissal of his claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The court held that the claimant failed to prove the negligence of the opposite vehicle and was an accused in a charge sheet, thus rightly denied compensation.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed with no costs.

Sri. Moses. J Vs Sri. Karthik Murali — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:13642 MFA No. 2755 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2755 OF 2017(MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. MOSES. J, S/O. JOHNSON, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/AT. 11TH MAIN, 1ST CROSS, MARAMMA TEMPLE, B. NARAYANAPURA, DOORAVANINAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 016.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. SURESH M. LATUR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI. KARTHIK MURALI, S/O. NAGESH MURALI, R/O. NO.23/1, SUBHIKSHA, 9TH MAIN ROAD, C.V. RAMAN NAGARA, BEHIND GTRE, SUDDAGUNTEPALYA, BENGALURU - 560 093.

¶13

THE MANAGER, THE ICICI LOMBARD GEN INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.89, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, 2ND FLOOR, SVR COMPLEX, MADIVALA, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 093.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 17.11.2023 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:13642 MFA No. 2755 of 2017

¶17

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.09.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.5228/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, PRINCIPAL MACT, BANGALORE, (SCCH-1) DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION AS NOT MAINTAINABLE.

¶18

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

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

This appeal is filed by the claimant aggrieved by the award passed in M.V.C.No.5228/2015 on the file of the Member, Principal MACT, Bengaluru dated 23.09.2016 whereby the Court below had dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimant.

¶21

The claim petition was filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the road accident that occurred in the year 2016. It is the case of the claimant that on 26.09.2015, at about 2.00 pm., the claimant was riding motorcycle on K.R.Puram-Hoskote Road and while proceeding so, when he came near T.C.Palya Signal, a car came from the main road in a rash and negligent manner,

¶22

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:13642 MFA No. 2755 of 2017

¶23

dashed against the claimant's motorcycle in which he suffered grievous injuries. Immediately, after the accident, he was shifted to Super Specialty Hospital, K.R.Puram, Bengaluru wherein first aid treatment was given to him and from there he was shifted to Bowring Hospital, Bengaluru wherein he took treatment as an inpatient and had spent Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses.

¶24

It is the case of the claimant that he is working as

¶25

a driver and earning an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month. The respondent/insurance company had filed its written statement stating that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the car and accident had taken place because of the negligence on the part of the claimant. The police have filed charge sheet against the claimant. The Court below had observed that the petition is filed under Section 166 of M.V.C Act. The burden lies on the claimant to prove that the accident had taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The Police, basing on the complaint given by the

¶26

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:13642 MFA No. 2755 of 2017

¶27

driver of the car had registered the complaint against the claimant and the charge sheet was filed. The Court below

¶28

had observed that as the burden lies on him to prove the negligence and he has failed to prove the same. He is not entitled for any compensation and accordingly, dismissed the petition.

¶29

Learned counsel for the claimant submits that the

¶30

claimant was in hospital, at that time, the driver of the car has given a complaint and basing on that the crime is registered. However, he does not dispute the fact that he

¶31

has not questioned the charge sheet filed against him. He submits that to prove that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the car, he had examined the pillion rider, but the insurance company had not adduced any evidence to show that there is negligence on the part of the claimant. It is submitted that the Court below had observed that there was a triple riding and the claimant was riding the vehicle without wearing helmet. He submits that those cannot be the grounds for dismissing the claim

¶32

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:13642 MFA No. 2755 of 2017

¶33

petition. It is further submitted that when there is collusion, without there been any evidence, the Court below cannot give the finding that the driver of the vehicle was at negligence. In support of his submissions, he has relied on the judgments in case of Usha Rajkhowa and

¶34

others Vs. Paramount Industrial and others¹ , Kiran Vs. Sajjan Singh and others² , Syed Sadiq and others Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.³ , Shobha Sanil and others Vs. Pushparaj Jain and others.⁴ Another judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of

¶35

Anjana Narayan Kamble and others Vs. Branch Manager, Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd. and another.⁵ Relying on these judgments learned counsel for the claimant submits that the insurance company had failed to prove the negligence on part of the claimant and was not wearing

¶36

1 2009 ACJ 1314 (SC) (DB)

¶37

2 2014 ACJ 2550 (SC) DB)

¶38

3 2014 ACJ 627 (SC) (DB)

¶39

4 2021 ACJ 1163 (KANT) (DB)

¶40

5 2023 ACJ 346

¶41

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:13642 MFA No. 2755 of 2017

¶42

helmet and triple riding cannot be the ground for dismissing the petition.

¶43

Learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company submits that when the charge sheet is filed against him without questioning the same, when all the material is against the claimant, the Court below had rightly dismissed the petition. He submits that no grounds are made out to interfere with the well considered order passed by the Court below.

¶44

Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material placed on record. The claim petition is filed under Section 166 of MV Act seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant. When the application is filed under Section 166 of MV Act, the involvement of the vehicle and the negligence on the opposite vehicle are the factors which have to be proved by the claimant. Immediately, after the accident, he was admitted in the hospital and when it is a road traffic

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:13642 MFA No. 2755 of 2017

¶47

accident, when he had sustained injuries, why he has not filed any medical documents to show that the hospital authority have mentioned about the injuries in a road traffic accident and why the same was not informed and what had happened, whether any MLC is registered or not, nothing has been placed before this Court, except examining the pillion rider. When the police have filed the charge sheet, when the claimant was arrayed as an accused, when he had not contributed to the accident, he ought to have questioned the same. Admittedly, he had not questioned the said charge sheet. Further, the claimant cannot claim the compensation when he himself is the Tortfeaser.

¶48

As far as the finding of the Court below with regard to not wearing the helmet and the triple riding was rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner. Those alone are not the factors for fixing the negligence. The Court below has to see from the facts and circumstances of the case. The judgments which are relied

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:13642 MFA No. 2755 of 2017

¶51

on by the learned counsel for the claimant with regard to contributory negligence, if there is a contributory

¶52

negligence, what is the burden of the insurance company. This Court is not going into all those issues, until and unless the claimant prove before this Court that the accident had taken place because of the negligence on the part of the driver of the opposite vehicle he is not entitled for any compensation. In this case, the material that is placed before this Court, points out at the negligence of the claimant and the charge sheet shows that the claimant

¶53

is the accused. In those circumstances, the Court below had rightly dismissed and this Court finds no reasons to interfere.

¶54

8. Accordingly, the appeal is ' dismissed '.

¶55

i. 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.

¶56

NC: 2024:KHC:13642 MFA No. 2755 of 2017

¶57

¶58

ii. No costs.

¶59

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

¶60

closed.

¶61

SD/JUDGE

¶62