Partly allowed

Ambarish v. Sri Vishwanath

Karnataka HC2 Aug 2024MFA/5641/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal order dismissing a compensation claim. Finding the Tribunal resigned its duty to assess compensation after accepting the accident facts, the High Court remanded the matter for further evidence and compensation assessment.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal to allow the parties to lead further evidence and assess compensation.

Ambarish Vs Sri Vishwanath — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:30651 MFA No. 5641 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA MFA NO. 5641 OF 2013 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

AMBARISH S/O DODDANNA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/A CHIMMAPPAIAH R HOSAKOTE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI PAVAGADA TALUK TUMKUR DIST …APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI. MUSHTAQ AHMED, ADV.)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by PRAJWAL A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SRI VISHWANATH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O RAMACHANDRAIAH R/AT 1^ST D CROSS KAVERI LAYOUT NAGARABHAVI ROAD VIJAYANAGAR BANGALORE-40 …RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI. R RANGANATH, ADV. [ABSENT])

¶13

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.3.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.74/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., MADHUGIRI, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

¶14

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶15

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:30651 MFA No. 5641 of 2013

¶18

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶19

In this appeal, the petitioner has challenged the Judgment and Award dated 16.03.2013 passed in MVC.No.74/2010 by the Prl.Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Madhugiri, (in short, 'the Tribunal').

¶20

The appellant was the petitioner and the respondent was the respondent before the Tribunal.

¶21

The parties will be referred to as per their status before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

¶22

Brief facts of the case are, on 06.07.2008 at about 6.00 p.m., the petitioner was proceeding in Maxi cab bearing Reg.No.KA-29-3140 as cleaner, met with an accident, near Canara Bank, Peenya, Bangalore, involving another Maxi cab bearing Reg.No.KA-272167, there was head-on-collision. As a result, the driver of the Maxi cab bearing No.KA-29-3140 lost control over the vehicle and capsized to the left side of the road, resulting in injuries to the petitioner. He was treated at Premium Sarojini Hospital and M.S.Ramaiah

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:30651 MFA No. 5641 of 2013

¶24

Hospital, Bangalore under hospitalization. After taking treatment, the petitioner approached the Tribunal for grant of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. Claim was opposed by the Insurance Company.

¶25

4. The Tribunal framed the following issues:

¶26

i) Whether the petitioner proves that he sustained injuries in an accident that occurred on 06.07.2008 at about 6.00 p.m., opposite Canara bank, Peenya on NH-4 due to rash and negligent driving of maxi cab bearing Reg.No.KA-29-3140 by its driver?

¶27

ii) Whether the respondent proves that the petitioner has already received the compensation?

¶28

iii) If issue no.3 is held in affirmative still petitioner is entitled for compensation from the respondent? If so to what amount?

¶29

iv) What order/award?

¶30

On behalf of the petitioner, examined himself as PW.1 and marked 42 documents as per Exs.P1 to

¶31

P42. Respondent though examined himself as Rw.1,

¶32

but he did not complete his evidence. Even the advocate appearing on his behalf was not appeared

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:30651 MFA No. 5641 of 2013

¶35

before the Court. After hearing arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this appeal on various grounds.

¶36

Heard the arguments of Sri.Mushtaq Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent remained absent.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the prosecution papers clearly explains the accident in question. In the affidavit evidence filed by the respondent before the Tribunal, he admits the accident. The Tribunal instead of accepting the same and assessing the compensation has erroneously dismissed the claim petition on erroneous reasons. When the respondent has not completed his evidence, it is not proper on the part of the Tribunal to hold that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the maxi cab.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:30651 MFA No. 5641 of 2013

¶40

I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments addressed by learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the materials on record.

¶41

The material on record did point out that there was an accident on 06.07.2008 at about 6.00 p.m., the petitioner was the inmate of the maxi cab bearing Reg.No.KA-29-3140, sustained injuries on account of capsize of the said vehicle involving another maxi cab bearing Reg.No.KA-27-2167. Medical records shows that he has been treated in Premium Sarojini Hospital and M.S.Ramaiah Hospital, Bangalore and he has suffered fracture of bilateral infusion pubic rami and fracture of medial condyle of left femur.

¶42

Ex.P5 is the IMV report, goes to show that the left side of the vehicle pressed inwards, which corroborates to the prosecution papers for the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the maxi cab. He was charge sheeted in Crime No.186/2008 by the Peenya Traffic Police. When the

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:30651 MFA No. 5641 of 2013

¶45

material on record clearly explains the accident in question and injuries sustained by the petitioner, he being a victim of the accident is entitled to claim compensation.

¶46

I have carefully perused the impugned judgment.

¶47

The Tribunal has recorded the finding that the accident occurred on account of maxi cab bearing Reg.No.KA-27-2167 dashed against the maxi cab bearing Reg.No.KA-29-3140 in which the petitioner was inmate. If it is so, involvement of two vehicles in the accident is accepted by the Tribunal, but it has held that no actionable negligence against the driver of the maxi cab in which the petitioner was inmate. This finding of the Tribunal cannot be accepted. When the Tribunal has held that there was an accident involving two vehicles, it is bounden duty to assess the compensation. Instead of assessing compensation in this appeal, it is proper to remand the matter to the

¶48

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:30651 MFA No. 5641 of 2013

¶49

Tribunal to afford opportunity to parties to place evidence for re-assessing the compensation. Hence,

¶50

the appeal merits consideration and in the result, the following:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

i) The appeal is allowed .

¶53

ii) The impugned judgment and award is set aside.

¶54

iii) The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to take up the case to the stage of evidence of respondent.

¶55

iv) The Tribunal shall provide opportunity to the parties to lead further evidence and then to assess the compensation in accordance with law.

¶56

iv) Without further notice, the parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 28.08.2024.

¶57

SD/(T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA) JUDGE

¶58

MKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

Ambarish v. Sri Vishwanath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ambarish v. Sri Vishwanath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Suryanarayanappa S/O Venkatappa Vs Sri Chalapathi S/O Late K M Chowdappa

Sureshachari S/O Krishnappa Vs Nagaraja R S/O Rangappa

Sri Maregowda S/O Puttaiah Vs Mohammad Hussain S/O Hayanth Sab

Sri Subramani Vs Sri Venkateshappa

Shankaramma Vs Praveen K. S.

Sri Cherian C.T. Vs the Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.