Appeal by an investigating officer against a Tribunal direction to pay Rs.50,000 damages for allegedly making a claimant run from pillar to post for documents. The High Court held the investigating officer is neither a necessary nor proper party to an MVA claim and set aside the damages award.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:11598 MFA No. 3516 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2024 BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3516 OF 2015 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. S.NAGESH S/O SUBBANNA.K.R., 39 YEARS, POLICE INSPECTOR OF DCRB, SUPERINTENDENT OF OFFICE, MADIKERI, COORG DISTRICT - 571 201.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SUNIL.S.RAO., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. T.SESHAGIRI RAO., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. K.S.ANASUYADEVI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 [ABSENT]; R3 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 09.10.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.1253/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, K.R.PET.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Sri.Sunil.S.Rao., learned counsel on behalf of Sri.T.Seshagiri Rao., for the appellant has appeared in person.
There is no representation on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, either personally or through video conferencing.
In response to the notice, the respondents appeared through their counsel. The first and second respondents have filed objection denying all the allegations. The third respondent filed Written Statement and denied all the allegations. He contended that he being the Head Constable investigated the case effectively and he also contended that he made his honest efforts to furnish the documents to the claimant. Among other grounds, they prayed for dismissal of the Claim Petition.
Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed issues, parties led evidence and marked the documents. The Tribunal vide Judgment dated:09.10.2014 partly allowed the Claim Petition and held that the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.10,13,463/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Thirteen
thousand and Four Hundred and Sixty Three only) with future interest at the rate of 8% per annum form the date of petition till the date of realization and respondents 1 and 2 were directed to pay the compensation. The Tribunal also directed the third respondent to pay damages of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with future interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The third respondent Sub Inspector of Police has assailed the Judgment of the Tribunal in this appeal on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of appeal.
Counsel Sri.Sunil.S.Rao., submits that an application in I.A.No.2/2015 is filed for production of additional documents. Counsel therefore, submits that the application may be allowed and appropriate order may be passed.
Submission is noted. Perused the application. Sri.Nagesh the third respondent has sworn to a declaration of facts and he has furnished the copy of the order dated:10.09.2013 passed by the III Addl. JMFC, Mysore in C.C.No.561/2011. Being
satisfied with the cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of the application, I.A.No.2/2015 is allowed.
Taking note of the said contention, the Tribunal held that because of the attitude of the Sub-Inspector the claimant had to run from pillar to post to collect the documents and directed him to pay damages. This is unsustainable. The reason is simple. The Tribunal has lost sight of the fact that in a Motor Vehicle Accident case, the presence of an Investigating Officer
is unnecessary. He is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the said case. The Tribunal has overlooked this aspect of the matter and unnecessarily blamed the Sub Inspector of Police who appears to have conducted the investigation effectively and completely. Furthermore, a perusal of the additional document i.e., the certified copy of Judgment in C.C.No.561/2011 depicts that the accused is found guilty. If that be so, it can be safely concluded that the Investigating Officer has discharged his professional duties effectively and completely. As already noted above, the presence of an Investigating Officer in a Motor Vehicle Accident case is unnecessary.
To conclude, I can say only this much that the Tribunal has failed to have regard to relevant consideration and disregarded relevant matters.
For the reasons stated above, the finding and the remark of the Tribunal against the third respondent Sub-inspector of Police is liable to be set-aside and accordingly, it is set-aside.
NC: 2024:KHC:11598 MFA No. 3516 of 2015
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with future interest
8% per annum is set-aside.
allowed .
A perusal of the daily order sheet depicts that this Court vide order dated:23.06.2015 granted interim order subject to appellant depositing Rs.37,000/- before the Tribunal.
If the deposit is made before the Tribunal, the deposited amount shall refunded to the appellant after due identification.
The Registry concerned is directed to transmit the records to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/JUDGE
MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal was justified in directing the third respondent Sub-Inspector of Police to pay damages of Rs.50,000/- in a motor vehicle accident claim?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri. S.Nagesh
The Manager, Mail Motor Service, Postal Department
The Superintendent, Yadavagiri Post Office, Mysore Division
Sri. Kumaraswamy
Jyoti Mulimani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
