Allowed¶60

Mr Vasanth @ Vasanth Kumar v. M/S Naveen Hotel Ltd.

Karnataka HC28 Jul 2025MFA/6709/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Remand of dismissed motor accident claims; Karnataka High Court 2025; Section 173(1) MV Act; MVC No.1553/2011 and MVC No.1554/2011; I Additional Small Cause Judge MACT Bengaluru; multi-vehicle chain collision tipper lorry KA-01-D-1898, Innova, autorickshaw, motorcycle KA-09-V-795; Tribunal error in appreciation of evidence; driver conviction Ex.P89 not relied on; set aside and fresh disposal within 3 months; liberty to adduce additional evidence; Justice P Sree Sudha.

What did the court decide?

Both appeals allowed; the judgment and award dated 04.01.2013 in MVC Nos.1533 & 1554/2011 set aside; matters remanded to the Tribunal to dispose afresh within 3 months of receipt of the judgment copy, with liberty to both sides to adduce additional evidence before advancing arguments. ¶60

Mr Vasanth @ Vasanth Kumar Vs M/S Naveen Hotel Ltd. — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:29060 MFA No. 6709 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 6708 of 2014

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6709/2014 (MV-I) C/W

¶8

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6708/2014 (MV-I)

¶9

IN MFA No. 6709/2014:

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

MR VASANTH @ VASANTH KUMAR, S/O MR MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, NO.56, VENUGOPALNAGAR, HULIMAVU, BEGUR HOBLI, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560 076.

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI. NAGARAJA S., ADVOCATE)

¶14

Digitally signed by MADHURI S

¶15

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

AND:

¶17

M/S NAVEEN HOTEL LTD., M G ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001, REP. NAVEEN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.

¶18

BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD., HUBLI CO-OPERATIVE COTTON SALES SOCIETY BLDG, OPPOSITE TO BASAVANNA, NEAR SWIMMING POOL, HUBLI-580020.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:29060 MFA No. 6709 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 6708 of 2014

¶21

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

(BY SMT. BHARATHI .M, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VENKATESH R. BHAGAT, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI. K.N. SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶24

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 04.01.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.1553/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, MACT, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

¶25

IN MFA NO. 6708/2014:

¶26

BETWEEN:

¶27

MR ANANDA, S/O MR KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.37, J P NAGAR, 2^ND STAGE, SARAKKI AGRAHARA, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560 078.

¶28

...APPELLANT

¶29

(BY SRI. H.C. SHIVARAMU., ADVOCATE)

¶30

AND:

¶31

M/S NAVEEN HOTEL LTD., M G ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, REP. BY MR. NAVEEN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

¶32

BRANCH MANAGER, NATIOANL INSURANCE CO. LTD., HUBLI CO-OPERATIVE COTTON SALES, SOCIETY BLDG, OPPOSITE TO BASAVANNA, NEAR SWIMMING POOL, HUBLI-580 020.

¶33

...RESPONDENTS

¶34

(BY SRI. K N SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE FOR R2,

¶35

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:29060 MFA No. 6709 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 6708 of 2014

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

SMT. BHARATHI M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VENKATESH .R BHAGAT, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

¶38

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:4.1.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.1554/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MACT, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

¶39

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶40

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶41

These appeals are filed by the appellants/claimants

¶42

under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 04.01.2013 passed in MVC Nos.1533 & 1554/2011 by the I Additional ACJ and MACT, Bengaluru, for enhancing the compensation.

¶43

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for

¶44

the appellants and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶45

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:29060 MFA No. 6709 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 6708 of 2014

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

The status of the parties before the Tribunal is

¶48

retained for the sake of convenience.

¶49

The case of the petitioners, as per the facts of the

¶50

tribunal is that the claimants before the tribunal were traveling on a motorcycle with registration No.KA-09-V-795 and there was involvement of several other vehicles. The charge sheet has been filed against the offending vehicles and it is stated that the tipper lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-01-D-1898 dashed against parked Innova car. Inturn, Innova car dashed autorickshaw and autorickshaw dashed the motorcycle. The charge sheet is filed against the driver of the tipper vehicle. The petitioners filed FIR, complaint and charge sheet as Exs.P1 to P3 and also filed the order copy in CC No.281/2011, to substantiate their version, regarding the accident. However, the tribunal observed that the number of the vehicles were not mentioned in the discharge summary. The petitioners also filed surgical bills, medical bills, inpatient bill and also filed other medical bills and

¶51

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:29060 MFA No. 6709 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 6708 of 2014

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

discharge summary under Exs.P4 to P88 and wound certificate under Ex.P159. The case sheet under Ex.P160 and other supporting documents and also examined two doctors, PW3 and PW4. The tribunal observed that the petitioners have not sustained any injuries in the accident and that there was no negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and tribunal had dismissed the petition.

¶54

Further, the driver of the offending vehicle also

¶55

was convicted, as per Ex.P89, but the tribunal did not rely upon it on the ground that the judgment in criminal case is not binding on them. The tribunal erred in appreciating the evidence or documents, though there is ample evidence by way of oral and documentary evidence. Though several documents were filed and witnesses PW.1 to PW.4, were examined before the tribunal, they were not properly appreciated. Therefore, this court finds it is justifiable to set aside the order and to remand the matter back to the tribunal to hear the arguments and again to dispose of the matter afresh, by duly appreciating oral and documentary

¶56