Allowed

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Smt Ningamma

Karnataka HC12 Mar 2024MFA/4439/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KSRTC appealed a MACT award granted to the grandmother and married elder sister of a rider killed in a bus collision. The High Court found the claimants were not dependents of the deceased, held the claim petition not maintainable, rejected it, set aside the Tribunal's award, and allowed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Tribunal judgment and award set aside; claim petition rejected; deposit to be refunded to KSRTC.

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs Smt… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:10114 MFA No. 4439 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4439 OF 2014(MV-D)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. D.VIJAYA KUMAR., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SMT. NINGAMMA W/O LATE NANJAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, R/O MACHANAYAKANAHALLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 432.

¶13

SMT.KANTHADEVI W/O SRI.MANJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O HUVINAHALLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 432.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(R1-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; BY SRI. RAMACHANDRA.R.NAIK., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶16

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:10114 MFA No. 4439 of 2014

¶19

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:20.03.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.1510/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT, NAGAMANGALA.

¶20

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Sri.D.Vijayakumar., learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Ramachandra R.Naik., learned counsel for respondent No.2 have appeared in person.

¶23

Notice to the respondents was ordered on 21.11.2014. A perusal of the office note depicts that notice to the first respondent is served and unrepresented. He has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person.

¶24

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

¶25

Though the appeal is listed today for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties it is heard finally.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:10114 MFA No. 4439 of 2014

¶28

It is the case of the claimants that on the 18^th day of October 2011 at about 3:00 p.m., deceased M.V.Ramesha was proceeding towards Machanayakahalli by riding a motorbike bearing No.KA-42-K-1650 on the left side of Bangalore-Mysore Road, in Mayaganahalli village in front of Mahadeswara temple. At that time the driver of KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-01-F-8392 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorbike from the backside. Due to the impact, the rider of the motorbike M.V.Ramesha fell, sustained fatal injuries, and died on the spot. Contending that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus, the grandmother and the married elder sister of the deceased filed the claim petition.

¶29

In response to the notice, the respondent appeared through its counsel filed objections, and denied the petition averments. It denied the involvement of the KSRTC bus in the accident and also contended that the claimants are not the dependents of the deceased. Among other grounds, it prayed for the dismissal of the petition.

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:10114 MFA No. 4439 of 2014

¶31

Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed issues, parties led evidence, and marked the documents. The Tribunal vide Judgment dated:20.03.2014 partly allowed the petition. It is this Judgment that is called into question in this appeal on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Appeal.

¶32

Learned counsel for the appellant in presenting his arguments strenuously urged that the deceased was a bachelor -issueless and the claim petition is filed by his grandmother and married elder sister. He argued by saying that the claimants are not the dependents.

¶33

By way of reply to this contention, learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently contends that the claimants are the dependents of the deceased. The Tribunal extenso referred to the material on record and rightly awarded compensation. Counsel therefore, submits that the appeal is devoid of merits and the same may be dismissed.

¶34

Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the appeal papers with utmost care.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:10114 MFA No. 4439 of 2014

¶37

The point that requires consideration is whether the

¶38

Claim Petition is maintainable.

¶39

The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. Suffice it to note that the accident occurred on the 18^th day of October 2011. The deceased was the grandson of Claimant No.1 and the younger brother of Claimant No.2.

¶40

A perusal of the record would reveal that Smt.Kanthadevi Claimant No.2 was examined as PW1. She has stated that the deceased Ramesh was her younger brother. It is not in dispute that the deceased was a bachelor -issueless. The claimants being the grandmother and married elder sister of the deceased are not the dependents. This aspect of the matter has been overlooked by the Tribunal and has erroneously proceeded to determine compensation and awarded compensation. What was required to be considered is whether the grandmother and married elder sister are the dependents of the deceased. As already noted above, the deceased was Bachelor - Issueless. Hence, the claim petition filed by his grandmother and married elder sister is not maintainable. Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that the claim petition filed by the grandmother and

¶41

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:10114 MFA No. 4439 of 2014

¶42

married elder sister is not liable. The claim petition is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, it is rejected.

¶43

For the reasons stated above, the Judgment dated 20.03.2014 passed by the Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Nagamangala in M.V.C. No.1510/2012 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside.

¶44

Resultantly, the Miscellaneous First Appeal is

¶45

allowed .

¶46

The registry concerned is directed to transmit the amount in deposit to the Tribunal forthwith for a refund of the same to the Corporation.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

MRP

¶49

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Smt Ningamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Smt Ningamma

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

Smt Tara Bhojegowda W/O Lt Sri B D Bhojegowda Vs Smt Shreelatha Vaidyanathan

Rajappa Vs Purushotham M M

Boralingegowda Vs Raju

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Radha

B Hanumantharaju S/O Bhangaiah Vs Suresh Babu S/O Doddathimmaiah

Suresh Babu Vs B Hanumantharaju