Karnataka High Court
Kasturevva W/O : Sadashiv ... vs Vasant S/O : Siddappa Patil on 22 August, 2022
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
MFA No. 25111 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 25111 OF 2010
(MV)
BETWEEN:
1. KASTUREVVA W/O : SADASHIV CHINCHALI
AGE : 47 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O : SAMEERWADI, TQ : MUDHOL, DIST : BAGALKOT
2. DODDAYYA D/O : SADASHIV CHINCHALI
AGE : 22 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O : SAMEERWADI, TQ : MUDHOL, DIST : BAGALKOT
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. K ANANDKUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. VASANT S/O. SIDDAPPA PATIL
AGE : MAJOR, OCC : AGRL. & BUSINESS,
R/O : BENDAWAD, TQ : RAIBAG,
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MARUTI GALLI, BELGAUM
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHRIHARSH A NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. S.S.KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
MFA No. 25111 of 2010
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE M.V.ACT,
1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.07.2010
PASSED IN MVC No.773/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT-II, BAGALKOT,
DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 163A OF
M.V.ACT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY. THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING.
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also
the learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The claimants are the legal heirs of the
deceased Chandrashekhar Chinchali, who was proceeding
in a Jeep bearing registration No.KA-23-M/2166 on
28.06.2006 from Jamakhandi towards Sameerawadi, at
that time the driver of the said Jeep was driving the said
vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and at about 10:45
p.m. when the said Jeep was proceeding near the
Sanganatti cross, the driver lost control over the said Jeep
and the right side portion was hit to the opposite truck,
due to the said impact the deceased fell down and
MFA No. 25111 of 2010
sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries
and hence, the claim was made before the tribunal.
3. The Insurance company of the Jeep appeared
and filed written statement and the tribunal framed issue
No.1 with regard to the rash and negligence on the part of
the Jeep. Having considered the petition is filed under
Section 163-A, the question of framing of issue with
regard to the rash and negligence does not arise and the
tribunal ought to have framed the issue with regard to the
use of the vehicle at the time of the accident and hence,
committed an error in framing issue with regard to the
rash and negligence in a petition filed under Section 163-
A. The question of rash and negligence does not arise
while considering the petition filed under Section 163-A
and hence, it is appropriate to set aside the order of the
tribunal and direct the tribunal to frame appropriate issue
in keeping the petition filed under Section 163-A and
consider the matter in accordance with law and hence, I
pass the following:
MFA No. 25111 of 2010
ORDER
(i) The impugned order dated
29.07.2010 passed in MVC No.773/2008 by the
Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT-II,
Bagalkote is hereby set aside.
(ii) The matter is remanded back to the
tribunal, to consider the matter afresh framing
proper issue in a petition under Section 163-A
and given an opportunity to both the side to lead
evidence if the claimant as well as the
respondent intend to adduce further evidence in
the matter.
(iii) The parties are directed to appear
before the tribunal on 19.09.2022, without
expecting any separate notice from the tribunal.
(iv) This matter is of the year 2008 and
hence, the tribunal is directed to dispose of the
matter within six months from the date of this
order and respective counsel are directed to
assist the tribunal to dispose of the matter within
the stipulated time.
MFA No. 25111 of 2010
(v) Registry is directed to send the
records forthwith to the tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SVH
