Sri.Basavarajappa Vs Sri.Anil Kumar.M

SRI. ANIL KUMAR M., S/O. MUNIKRISHNAPPA N., AGE: 40 YEARS, C/O. RAJANNA T.N., TORAHUNASE VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH (OWNER OF INDICA CAR BEARING REGN NO.KA-50-1252).

¶13

THE BRANCH MANAGER, OREINTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, SRI. SHARADA COMPLEX, OPP. TO KSRTC BUSSTAND, CHITRADURGA. (POLICY NO.421200/31/2008/ 2926 VALID FROM 19-07-2007 TO 18-07-2008. POLICY

¶14

2 -

¶15

NC: 2025:KHC:9272 MFA No. 9741 of 2013

¶16

ISSUED BY DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO.2. PB NO.9555, BANGALORE BRANCH.)

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; BY SRI. A.R. LAKSHMI NARAYANA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.10.2012 PASSED IN MVC.NO.469/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT, CHITRADURGA, DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND ETC.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

Aggrieved by the award passed in MVC.No.469/2008 dated 31.10.2012 by the Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Chitradurga, the appellant-claimant is before this Court.

¶24

The facts of the case are that the claimant had filed the petition seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident. It is the case of the claimant that on 22.11.2007 at 9.30 am., while the claimant was moving on the motor cycle on the left side of Chitradurga – Davanagere road,

¶25

he was hit by Indica car and because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Indica car, the claimant herein had

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:9272 MFA No. 9741 of 2013

¶28

sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter, he was shifted to the hospital and he was in-patient for 15 days and had to take bed rest for another 6 months and he had sustained fracture of his right ankle and fracture of fibula 1/3^rd of the right leg. The insurance company has filed their objections and had denied the accident and nexus between the injuries and the accident. By order impugned, the Trial Court had dismissed the case of the claimant on three grounds, one is the claimant had not produced the driving license, second is that he had not impleaded the insurer of the motorcycle who is the proper and necessary party to the petition and the third is that the driver of the Indica car has given a complaint against the appellant herein it means there is a rash and negligent driving on the part of the appellant and accordingly, dismissed the application. Aggrieved thereby, the claimant is before this Court.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant submits that the Trial Court had failed to consider both the oral and documentary evidence in its proper perspective and more on assumptions and presumptions had dismissed the petition. It is submitted that as the claimant is seeking compensation against the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle i.e.,

¶30

4 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:9272 MFA No. 9741 of 2013

¶32

Indica car. It is submitted that the insurer of the motorcycle is not a necessary party to this petition. Further, it is stated that the complaint given by the driver of the Indica car, the appellant is acquitted. These aspects were not considered by the Trial Court. Further, it is submitted that the appellant is entitled for the compensation for the injuries sustained by him and the order of the trial court is not a well considered one.

¶33

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/ Insurance Company submits that the Trial Court had rightly considered all the aspects as the claimant had failed to prove the accident and considering the fact that no complaint is given by him and the complaint is given by the driver/owner of the Indica car and the chargesheet filed against him was not questioned. The Trial Court had rightly dismissed the petition.

¶34

Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. It is the case of the claimant that he had sustained injuries in the accident. He had tried to give the complaint, but the police have not taken his complaint. The complaint is given by the driver/owner of the Indica car, a full-fledged investigation was done, chargesheet was filed and

¶35

5 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:9272 MFA No. 9741 of 2013

¶37

the appellant is acquitted in the said case. The reasons that are given by the Trial Court particularly, the non-joinder of proper and necessary party and presuming that the accident had happened because of the rash and negligent driving of the appellant and giving a finding on the negligence and dismissing the petition filed by the appellant, in the considered opinion of this Court, the reasons that are assigned are not proper reasons to dismiss the petition. The Trial Court ought to have considered the evidence on record and ought to have given an opportunity to the claimant to prove his case and instead of doing that the Trial Court on all the issues as discussed supra had dismissed the petition. In that view of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to pass the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

i. The appeal is allowed by setting aside the award passed in MVC.No.469/2008 dated 31.10.2012 by the Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast

¶40

Track Court), Chitradurga and the matter is remanded back to the trial court for fresh consideration.

¶41

6 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:9272 MFA No. 9741 of 2013

¶43

ii. The parties shall appear before the Trial Court without further notice on 17.03.2025.

¶44

iii. The Trial Court shall dispose of the matter within six months from 17.03.2025.

¶45

iv. Both the parties shall not seek unnecessary adjournments.

¶46

v. The registry is directed to send the records to the Trial Court along with the certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay.

¶47

vi. No Costs.

¶48

vii. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶49

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶50

BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

Sri.Basavarajappa v. Sri.Anil Kumar.M

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Basavarajappa v. Sri.Anil Kumar.M

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Nanjamma Vs Smt Mangalagowri

Smt. Sudhamani Vs Sri. Shivaraju

Sri. G Sambasiva Rao Vs Sri. T Jayaram

Byle Gowda Vs Krishna Murthy

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt. Rajalakshmi. N

Mohammed Vs the Divisional Controller