Allowed

Sri S Manjunath v. Sri M Ramakrishnappa

Karnataka HC14 Mar 2024MFA/5159/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Motor vehicle compensation claim for damage to the claimant's car was dismissed by the Tribunal solely for failure to produce the R.C. Book proving ownership. The High Court allowed an application producing the 'B' Register extract showing ownership and set aside the Tribunal's judgment, remanding the matter for fresh disposal.

What did the court decide?

Tribunal judgment in MVC No.7728/2007 set aside; matter remanded to MACT for fresh decision; parties to appear on 08.04.2024.

Sri S Manjunath Vs Sri M Ramakrishnappa — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:10603 MFA No. 5159 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5159 OF 2013

¶7

(MV-DM)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI S.MANJUNATH S/O SRI SHIVARUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 84, K.G.HALLI POST, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE-560 060.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SMT. M.V.ANUPAMA., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAPPA S/O LATE SRI MUNIANJINAPPA, MAJOR,

¶14

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

RESIDING AT BUDIGERE VILLAGE, DEVANAHALLI TALUK-562 110, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶16

M/S. UNITED INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD, DIVISIONAL OFFICE III, NO.24, 1^ST FLOOR, CLASSIC BUILDING, RICHMOND ROAD, BANGALORE-560 026.

¶17

M/S. M.G.M. TRANSPORT (MADRAS) PVT. LTD., NO.87/16, 14^TH CROSS, KALASIPALYAM NEW EXTENSION, BANGALORE - 560 002.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:10603 MFA No. 5159 of 2013

¶20

ICICI LOMBARD ICICS BANK TOWERS, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BOMBAY (EAST) - 400 051.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(R1-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; BY SRI. A.N.KRISHNA SWAMY., ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. B.PRADEEP., ADVOCATE FOR R4; NOTICE TO R3-HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DATED: 09.01.2019)

¶23

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:05.03.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.7728/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE X ASCJ & XXXV ACMM, MACT, BANGALORE.

¶24

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

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Smt.M.V.Anupama., learned counsel for the appellant, Sri.A.N.Krishnaswamy., learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri.B.Pradeep., learned counsel for respondent No.4 have appeared in person.

¶27

Notice to respondents was ordered on 06.06.2017. A perusal of the office note depicts that respondent No.1 is served and unrepresented. A perusal of the order sheet depicts that notice to respondent No.3 is held sufficient. They have

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:10603 MFA No. 5159 of 2013

¶29

neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as party in person.

¶30

It is the case of the claimant that on the 25^th day of July 2006 at about 3:55 hours, he was driving the Qualis Car bearing Reg.No.KA-03-B-5638 to drop AEGIS Company employees at Nagarabhavi. At that time, a Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-01-AB-5510 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit his Car and the car was damaged. Contending that he is entitled for compensation towards vehicle damage, he filed a claim petition.

¶31

After issuance of notice, the respondents appeared through their counsel and filed written statement and denied the averments made in the claim petition. Among other grounds they prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶32

Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the issue, parties led evidence and marked the documents. The Tribunal vide Judgment dated:05.03.2013 dismissed 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.

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:10603 MFA No. 5159 of 2013

¶34

Counsel Smt.M.V.Anupama., in presenting her

¶35

arguments strenuously urged that the Tribunal rejected the claim petition solely on the ground that the claimant has failed to furnish R.C. Book to show that he is the owner of the Qualis Car. She argued by saying that the R.C. Book was misplaced and the claimant has obtained the certified copy of the same and has been furnished along with an application in I.A.No.2/2014. She further submits that the application has been allowed on 18.01.2018. Counsel therefore, submits that the same may be taken note of and the matter may be remanded.

¶36

Counsel for respondents 2 & 4 submits that appropriate order may be passed.

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. Perused the Judgment of the Tribunal with utmost

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:10603 MFA No. 5159 of 2013

¶42

care. The Tribunal rejected the claim petition solely on the ground that the claimant has not furnished the R.C Book.

¶43

In the present appeal, an application in I.A.No.2/2014 was filed under Order 41 Rule 27 R/w Section 151 of CPC and the extract of "B" Register issued by the Regional Transport Office, Jnanabharathi, Mysore Road, Bengaluru is furnished along with the application. In the "B" Register extract, the name of the owner of the Qualis Car is shown as Manjunath.S. Suffice it to note that this Court vide order dated:18.01.2018 allowed the application.

¶44

For the reasons stated above, the appeal is liable to be allowed and the matter requires a remand.

¶45

The Judgment dated:05.03.2013 passed by the Court of MACT-XI at Bengaluru in M.V.C. No.7728/2007 is setaside. The matter is remanded.

¶46

Since the parties are represented by their respective counsel and they are directed to appear before the Tribunal on the 8^th day of April 2024 without awaiting further notice from the Tribunal. Needless to observe that the parties are at a liberty to lead evidence if any.

¶47

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:10603 MFA No. 5159 of 2013

¶48

Resultantly, the Miscellaneous First Appeal is

¶49

allowed and remanded .

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

MRP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4

Sri S Manjunath v. Sri M Ramakrishnappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri S Manjunath v. Sri M Ramakrishnappa

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 Pavithra Vs Nadeem Pasha

Jilani @ Jilan Vs C.L. Indu Shekar

Sri Bibijan Vs Sri. M. Manjunath Rao

Chaithra Vs Sri. M.Kumar

Appaiah Vs Swami Jogi

Harisha Vs the Managing Director