Renuka vs Dinesh Y S
2021 Latest Caselaw 5223 Kant

                              1


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                           BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

               M.F.A. NO.2064 OF 2016 (MV-D)


BETWEEN:

RENUKA
W/O NAGARAJ
36 YEARS, RACHENAHALLI VILLAGE
SHRAVANABELAGOLA POST
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT
PRESENTLY R/O B KATIHALLI VILLAGE
HASSAN TOWN - 573 201.
                                           ... APPELLANT
(BY SMT. SHARADAMBA A.R., ADVOCATE)


AND:

1.     DINESH Y.S.,
       S/O SHIVEGOWDA Y.K.,
       YACHEAHALLI VILLAGE,
       ADAGURU POST,
       KASABA HOBLI,
       CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
       HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201.

2.     THE MANAGER,
       ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
       BRANCH OFFICE,
       JAYADEVA HOSPITAL BUILDING,
                                 2


      B.H. ROAD, TIPTUR,
      TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 101.
                                          ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SHASHIDHAR K.N., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
    SRI RAVISHANKAR A., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

                            *****

     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.12.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1885/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE, MACT, HASSAN, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION.

    THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                          JUDGMENT

The captioned appeal is filed by the claimant questioning

the judgment and award dated 09.12.2015 passed in

MVC.No.1885/2012, wherein the Tribunal has dismissed the

claim petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and

learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the judgment

under challenge. I have also given my anxious consideration

to the grounds urged in the appeal memo.

3. The short point that would arise for consideration is

as to whether the foster daughter can claim to be a dependant

and seek compensation on account death of one Puttamma.

Even if the contention of the appellant is accepted and if she is

held to be the foster daughter, then also she cannot maintain

an application under Section 166(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988. The proceedings under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act admittedly being a summary proceedings, the

question of status of the appellant/claimant cannot be

examined. It is also forthcoming from the records that as on

the date of accident, the appellant herein was aged 32 years

and she was married. If she was already married as on the

date of accident, then the question of adjudicating the claim of

the appellant herein under the head 'loss of dependency' may

not arise.

4. It is also borne out from the records that the

brother of Smt. Puttamma namely Rangaswamy has also filed

a claim petition in MVC.No.1923/2013. The Tribunal has dealt

with the claim made by the appellant herein and on re-

appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, has come

to conclusion that the appellant cannot assert and claim to be

the dependant of Puttamma.

5. On re-appreciation of the oral and documentary

evidence, no contrary view can be taken in the present case

on hand. The grounds urged in the appeal memo would not

displace the conclusions and findings arrived at by the

Tribunal.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

CA