Dhanalakshmi Vs Naveen

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:15.07.2022 PASSED IN MVC No.1042/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOLENARASIPURA, PARTLY DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

¶34

THIS MFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 03.07.2026, THIS DAY, SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR J , DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING;

¶35

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶36

CAV JUDGMENT

¶37

This appeal is filed by the claimants challenging

¶38

the dismissal of their claim petition by judgment and award dated 15.07.2022 passed in MVC No. 1042/2018 by

¶39

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:34381 MFA No. 933 of 2023

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT,

¶42

Holenarasipura.

¶43

The appellants made a claim petition seeking award of compensation for the death of one Manjunatha in a road traffic accident that occurred on 22.01.2018 contending that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the rider of motorcycle bearing No. KA-13-EC-4967. The Tribunal recorded the evidence. The Tribunal appreciating the evidence on record held that the claimants have not proved that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the rider of the motorcycle belonging to respondent No. 1, insured with respondent No. 2 and dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved by the said dismissal order the claimants have filed the present appeal.

¶44

Heard learned counsel for appellants and

¶45

learned counsel for respondent No. 2 - Insurer.

¶46

4 -

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:34381 MFA No. 933 of 2023

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

Learned counsel for claimants would contend

¶50

that chargesheet has been filed against the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-13-EC-4967 and said vehicle belongs to respondent No. 1. Said fact itself indicates that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motorcycle. The Tribunal doubted the involvement of the vehicle only on the ground that there is delay of 6 days in filing the first information. The Tribunal placed more reliance on the admission given by P.W.1 - wife of the deceased in her cross-examination wherein she has stated that the driver and owner of the vehicle are her relatives and that she has filed a complaint involving the vehicle of respondent No. 1 to get compensation. P.W.2 is eye witness to the incident and he has stated regarding the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motorcycle belonging to respondent No. 1. The Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence on record properly. The delay in filing the complaint has been stated along with the reasons in the complaint filed by brother of

¶51

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:34381 MFA No. 933 of 2023

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

the deceased as per Ex.P.2. In Ex.P.5 – spot mahazar Lokesh eyewitness has shown the spot to the Panchas and the Police and the said Lokesh eyewitness has been examined as P.W.2. P.W.1 is an illiterate lady and admissions given in the cross-examination cannot be solely relied upon considering the chargesheet filed against the rider of the motorcycle. With this he prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment and award and remanding the matter to the Tribunal for assessing the compensation.

¶54

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 - insurer would contend that the accident occurred on 22.01.2018 and FIR has been registered on 28.01.2018 on the complaint of brother of the deceased. The injured died on 28.01.2018 and complaint has been filed on 28.01.2018. Even though P.W.2 is stated to be an eye witness who was accompanying the deceased at the time of the accident, he has not chosen to file any complaint. P.W.2 has been cited in the chargesheet as witness to the mahazar. P.W.2 and

¶55

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:34381 MFA No. 933 of 2023

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

another witness to the mahazar have seen drawing up of mahazar as shown by one Lokesh. The name of P.W.2 and eyewitness is one and the same, i.e., Lokesh. P.W.2 is not the eyewitness, but he is a spot mahazar witness. P.W.1 in her cross-examination has admitted that Rangaswami, who was riding the motorcycle and respondent No. 1, Naveen are her close relatives and she has admitted that she implicated the vehicle to get the compensation. Considering all these aspects, the Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned order dismissing the claim petition of the appellants by reasoned order. There are no grounds to set aside the impugned judgment and award. With this she prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

¶58

Having heard the learned counsels, the Court

¶59

has perused judgment, award and trial Court records.

¶60

Considering the grounds raised, the following point arise for consideration.

¶61

Whether the Tribunal is justified in dismissing the claim petition of the appellants?

¶62

7 -

¶63

NC: 2026:KHC:34381 MFA No. 933 of 2023

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

The answer to the above point is in the

¶66

affirmative for the following reasons:

¶67

The accident occurred on 22.01.2018. The injured is

¶68

stated to be a pedestrian on the road. Vehicle of respondent No. 1 driven by one Rangaswami dashed to the said injured/deceased. The injured/deceased Manjunath was admitted initially in Government Hospital, Holenarasipura. Medico legal case extract has been produced at Ex.R.3 which indicates that Manjunath - injured/deceased was admitted in the hospital with a history of road traffic accident. Who had brought the said injured to the hospital is not clearly mentioned in Ex.R.3. Considering Ex.R.3 it is clear that the said Manjunath, the injured/deceased sustained injuries in a road traffic accident. The question is, whether the vehicle of respondent No. 1 driven by one Rangaswami is involved or not and it is to be determined by appreciating the evidence on record.

¶69

NC: 2026:KHC:34381 MFA No. 933 of 2023

¶70

8 -

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

Ex.R.2 is MLC register extract of Sri

¶73

Chamarajendra Hospital, Hassan, wherein it is stated that the injured was admitted in the said hospital on 23.01.2018 at 12.10 a.m. with a history of road traffic accident wherein it is mentioned that who has caused the accident is not known. The injured was brought to the said Hospital by one Swami. P.W.2 who is stated to be an eye witness has admitted that deceased - Swami and he are close friends and at the time of the accident he was along with the deceased. Said P.W.2, even after the accident, even though the deceased was his friend, has not chosen to take him to the hospital or file first information to the Police. The first information has been filed by one Shekhar, brother of the injured/deceased on 28.01.2018 at about 06.00 p.m. The accident occurred on 22.01.2018 at 10.30 p.m. There is a gap of six days in between the accident and the first information filed by the said Shekhar. The reason for the delay in filing the first information is that the said Shekhar, who filed first

¶74

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:34381 MFA No. 933 of 2023

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

information, was busy with getting treatment to his brother, who had sustained injuries in the accident. Even in the first information, name of the rider of the motorcycle has not been stated. FIR has been registered against the rider of the motorcycle without naming him.

¶77

Charge sheet has been filed against Rangaswami, son of Raja stating that he was riding the motorcycle at the time of the accident and the said vehicle belongs to respondent No. 1 - Naveen, who has been cited as C.W.10 in the charge sheet. On perusal of the charge sheet, no eyewitness are cited in the charge sheet. One Lokesh son of Ramegowda has been cited as C.W.2 stating that he is a witness to the spot mahazar. He has not been cited as an eyewitness. P.W.2 is the said Lokesh of son of Ramegowda. Ex.P.5 is the spot mahazar. Said spot mahazar has been drawn in the presence of two panchas, namely No. 1 Lokesh son of Ramegowda, No. 2 Narayan son of Papayya. In Ex.P.5 - spot mahazar there is a mention that one Lokesh has shown the spot to the said

¶78

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:34381 MFA No. 933 of 2023

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

two panchas and he is eye witness to the incident. The details of the said Lokesh are not stated in the said spot mahazar i.e., his father's name, address etc. P.W.2 is the pancha to the said mahazar and his name is also Lokesh son of Ramegowda. When he is cited as a pancha to whom

¶81

one Lokesh has shown the spot stating that he has seen the accident, it cannot be the said that P.W.2 - Lokesh son of Ramegowda is the said eye witness. Statement of the said Lokesh, son of Ramegowda recorded by the Police has not been produced. In the chargesheet also Lokesh son of Ramegowda has been shown as C.W.2, a panch witness to the spot mahazar. He has not been shown as eye witness to the accident. Therefore, the said evidence of P.W.2 does not establish that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the rider Rangaswami son of Raja by riding the vehicle belonging to respondent No. 2 - Naveen, son of Giddaya. Said Rangaswami, rider of the motorcycle and Naveen son of Giddaiah - owner of the motorcycle, are relatives of the claimants and the same has been

¶82

11 - NC: 2026:KHC:34381 MFA No. 933 of 2023

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

admitted by P.W.1 in her cross-examination. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased. P.W.1 has admitted that Naveen, son of Giddaiah is the son of her younger sister and Rangaswami is her relative. She has also admitted that in order to claim compensation she has filed a complaint implicating the vehicle of Naveen son of Giddaiah.

¶85

There is delay in filing the complaint. Rider and owner of the motorcycle are relatives of the deceased. P.W.1 and PW2 are not eyewitness to the accident. Therefore, claimants have failed to prove the involvement of the vehicle belonging to respondent No. 1 - Naveen son of Giddaiah bearing registration No. KA-13-EC-4967 ridden by one Rangaswami, son of Raja in the accident.

¶86

Considering all these aspects, the Tribunal has rightly held that the claimants have failed to prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No. KA13-EC-4967 and rightly dismissed the claim petition. The point is answered accordingly.

¶87

NC: 2026:KHC:34381 MFA No. 933 of 2023

¶88

12 -

¶89

HC-KAR

¶90

In view of the above, claim petition is rightly

¶91

dismissed by the Tribunal. There are no grounds to interfere with the well reasoned order/judgment passed by the Tribunal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

¶92

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶93

LRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 65 Ct.sm

Dhanalakshmi v. Naveen

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanalakshmi v. Naveen

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesha Narayanappa Vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.

Smt. Jitali Gogoi Vs Sri Ramanjalu Nayak B

The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs Mr. Victor Dsouza

Mrs. G N Nagarathna, Vs Mr. K C Utthappa

Sri Anil N Vs State by Kadugodi

Smt. Jayamma Vs Sri. Hanumantharayappa