Dismissed

The Manager v. Smt Sandhya

Karnataka HC25 Mar 2024MFA/3366/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal judgment, the High Court of Karnataka examined whether the appellate court should interfere with the Tribunal's finding that the insurance company was liable for compensation due to rash and negligent driving, rejecting the appellant's claims regarding contributory negligence and joint claims.

What did the court decide?

The Miscellaneous First Appeal is rejected. The Registry directed to transmit records and deposited amount to the Tribunal for disbursement.

The Manager Vs Smt Sandhya — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:12235 MFA No. 3366 of 2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3366 OF 2013 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 2^ND FLOOR, CLASSIC CHAMBER, OPP. CENTRAL MARKET, MANGALORE. BY NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.144, SUBHARAM COMPLEX, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. BY ITS MANAGER.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. O.MAHESH., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SMT. SANDHYA W/O RAGHUNATHA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/A MARVANTHILA HOUSE, PERABE VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT-574 001.

¶14

ANANDA GOWDA S/O KUNCHANA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/A ARALI HOUSE, UJIRE POST, BELTHANGADY TALUK-574 214.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(NOTICE TO R1-ACCEPTED V/O DATED:21.01.2016; NOTICE TO R2-DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED:18.04.2013)

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:12235 MFA No. 3366 of 2013

¶18

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:31.12.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.394/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, MEMBER, MACT-IX, BANTWAL, D.K.

¶19

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

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Sri.O.Mahesh., learned counsel for the appellant has appeared through video conferencing.

¶22

Notice to respondent No.1 was ordered on 18.04.2013. A perusal of the daily order sheet depicts that notice to respondent No.1 is held sufficient vide order dated:21.01.2016. She has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as party in person.

¶23

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status and rankings before the Tribunal.

¶24

The brief facts are these:

¶25

On the 26^th day of August 2009 at about 11:00 am., the mother of the claimant - Smt.Susheela and brother -

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:12235 MFA No. 3366 of 2013

¶27

Balasubramani were going from Perabe of Puttur Taluk to Mangalore to attend a function in the Swift Car bearing Registration No.KA-02-MA-9188. When they were proceeding near Purlipady of Balthila Village, Bantwal Taluk, a driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.KA-19-B-4219 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the Swift Car. Due to the forced impact, the brother of the claimant died on the spot and the mother was admitted to the A.J.Hospital, Mangalore for treatment, wherein she took treatment as an inpatient from 26.08.2009 to 31.08.2009. Since she was not responding to the treatment, she was shifted to the house and she succumbed to injuries. Contending that she is entitled for the compensation, the claimant filed claim petition.

¶28

In response to the notice, the third respondent remained absent before the Tribunal and hence he was placed ex-parte . The first and second respondents appeared through their counsel and filed objections denying the petition averments. Among other grounds, they prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶29

Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed issues, parties led evidence and marked the documents. The

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:12235 MFA No. 3366 of 2013

¶31

Tribunal vide Judgment dated:31.12.2012 allowed the petition in part. The Insurance Company has assailed the Judgment of the Tribunal in this appeal on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of appeal.

¶32

Learned counsel for the appellant has urged several contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant and perused the appeal papers and also the records with utmost care.

¶33

The point that requires consideration is whether the

¶34

Judgment of the Tribunal requires interference?

¶35

The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. It is not in dispute that the accident occurred on the 26^th day of August 2009. The principal ground on which this Court is asked to set-aside the Judgment of the Tribunal is that the Tribunal has overlooked the issue regarding contributory negligence and also the joint claim petition in respect of two death claims by a married daughter as well as a sister of deceased persons i.e., mother and brother in the road traffic accident. The Tribunal extenso referred to the material on record and concluded that the accident occurred due to the

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:12235 MFA No. 3366 of 2013

¶37

rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry by its driver and held that the insurance company being the insurer of the offending lorry is liable to pay the compensation. In my view, the conclusion so arrived at by the Tribunal is just and proper. find no reason to interfere with the Judgment of the Tribunal.

¶38

For the reasons stated above, the appeal is devoid of merits and it is liable to be rejected.

¶39

Resultantly, the Miscellaneous First Appeal is

¶40

rejected .

¶41

The Registry concerned is directed to transmit the records and the amount in deposit, if any to the concerned Tribunal forthwith for disbursement.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

TKN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3

The Manager v. Smt Sandhya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Manager v. Smt Sandhya

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

Branch Manager Vs Suresh

Nanjamari S/O Rangegowda Vs Rajani Bhat

Sri. Mohammed Nazeer Vs the Branch Manager

Manjunatha Vs Rajashekara

Sri Shivakumar R Vs the Managing Director

Safwan Vs Hajabba