Allowed

Suresh Babu v. B Hanumantharaju

Karnataka HC12 Mar 2024MFA/4783/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a Miscellaneous First Appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court accepted evidence that the appellant had sold the vehicle prior to the accident. It permitted an application for additional document and remanded the motor vehicle case for fresh adjudication. No other substantive headnote found for banking or rights topics.

What did the court decide?

The judgment of the Tribunal in M.V.C. No.875/2008 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication.

Suresh Babu Vs B Hanumantharaju — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:10113 MFA No. 4783 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4783 OF 2014(MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SURESH BABU S/O DODDATHIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT BUGUDANAHALLI, BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMKUR-572 101.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI.SUNIL.K.N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.RAMESH.K.R., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

B.HANUMANTHARAJU S/O BHANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT BUGUDANAHALLI, BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMKUR - 572 101.

¶13

BAJAJ ALLIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BAGIC K.N.V COMPLEX, 4^TH CROSS, VIDHYANAGAR B.H.ROAD, TUMKUR-572 102. REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI.K.SHANTHARAJ., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. B.PRADEEP., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:10113 MFA No. 4783 of 2014

¶19

JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:29.02.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.875/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL, JUDGE, MACT-XI, TUMKUR.

¶20

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

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Sri.Sunil.K.N., learned counsel on behalf of Sri.Ramesh.K.R., for the appellant, Sri.K.Shantharaj., learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri.Pradeep.B., learned counsel on for respondent No.2 have appeared in person.

¶23

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

¶24

The brief facts are these:

¶25

The claimant is one Mr.B.Hanumantharaju. He contended that on the 28^th day of March 2018 at about 2:00 p.m., he along with his friend Rajanna were proceeding from Gubbi to K.G Temple. At that time, a auto rickshaw bearing Reg. No.KA06-A-9068 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the claimant from behind. Due to the impact, he sustained injuries. Immediately, he was taken to Adithya Hospital, Tumkur and from there to Vydehi Institute of Medical Sciences and Research

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:10113 MFA No. 4783 of 2014

¶27

Centre, Bangalore. Contending that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto rickshaw, the claimant filed the Claim Petition seeking compensation.

¶28

After issuance of the notice, the first respondent appeared through his counsel. The first respondent filed written statement contending that he is not the owner of the vehicle as on the date of accident. He contended that he has sold the vehicle to one Jayaramaiah S/o.Rajanna. Among other grounds, he prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶29

The Insurance company appeared through its counsel and filed written statement and denied the petition averments. Among other grounds, it prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶30

Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed Issues, parties led evidence and marked the documents. The Tribunal vide Judgment dated:29.02.2012 allowed the Claim Petition. It is this Judgment that is called into question in this appeal on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Appeal.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:10113 MFA No. 4783 of 2014

¶33

4. Learned counsel for the respective parties have urged several contentions.

¶34

Counsel Sri.Sunil.K.N., submits that an application in I.A.No.1/2017 is filed furnishing the true copy of the 'B' Register Extract in respect of the Auto Rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-06-A-9068. Counsel submits that the application for production of additional document may be allowed and the matter may be remanded.

¶35

Counsel Sri.B.Pradeep., submits that he has no objection to allow the application.

¶36

Counsel Sri.K.Shantharaj., objects to allow the application. He submits that the accident occurred during the year 2008. However, the application is made in the year 2017. Hence, he submits that appropriate order may be passed.

¶37

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

¶38

The point that requires consideration is whether the matter requires a remand.

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:10113 MFA No. 4783 of 2014

¶40

The owner Mr.Suresh Babu has filed an application in I.A.No.1/2017 under Order 41 Rule 27 R/w Section 151 of CPC for production of additional document. He has sworn to a declaration of facts by way of an affidavit to contend that he had already sold the vehicle as on the date of the accident.

¶41

Perused the 'B' Register Extract with utmost care. A perusal of the same would reveal that the owner Mr.Suresh Babu had sold the vehicle to Jayaramaiah. The Registration Certificate was transferred in the name of Jayaramaiah on 24.09.2007 itself. If that be so, Mr.Suresh Babu was not the owner of the offending vehicle as on the date of the accident. Hence, this Court deems it proper to allow the application in I.A.No.1/2017. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is liable to be allowed and the matter requires a remand.

¶42

The Judgment dated:29.02.2012 passed by the Court of Addl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT-XI at Tumkur in M.V.C. No.875/2008 is set-aside. The matter is remanded.

¶43

Needless to observe that the claimant is at a liberty to implead the owner of the offending vehicle Mr.Jayaramaiah as a party to the Claim Petition before the Tribunal and the parties are also at liberty to lead evidence, if any.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:10113 MFA No. 4783 of 2014

¶46

The Registry concerned is directed to transmit the amount in deposit to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶47

The appellant - Mr.Suresh Babu is at a liberty to make appropriate application for withdrawal of the amount. If such an application is made, the Tribunal shall pass appropriate orders on the application.

¶48

Resultantly, the Miscellaneous First Appeal is

¶49

allowed and remanded .

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

MRP

¶52

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54

Suresh Babu v. B Hanumantharaju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Babu v. B Hanumantharaju

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

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs Smt Ningamma

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