Karnataka High Court
Sri Chand Pasha S/O Sunna Sab vs Sri V Nagesh S/O Venkataramanappa on 24 February, 2022
Bench: P.Krishna Bhat
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8196 OF 2011 (MV)
CONNECTED WITH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8197 OF 2011 (MV)
IN MFA NO.8196/2011:
BETWEEN:
SRI NARAYANA SWAMY
S/O. LINGANNA,
AGED 43 YEARS,
OCC: COOLIE,
RESIDENT OF MUGABALA JADAGENAHALLI HOBLI,
HOSKOTE TALUK,
BENGALURU-562 114.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI SURESH M. LATUR, ADV., ALONG WITH
SMT. SUNITHA B.H.)
IN MFA NO.8197/2011:
BETWEEN:
SRI CHAND PASHA
S/O. SUNNA SAB,
AGED 38 YEARS,
OCC: DRIVER,
RESIDENT OF MUGABALA JADAGENAHALLI HOBLI,
HOSKOTE TALUK,
BENGALURU-562 114.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI SURESH M. LATUR, ADV., ALONG WITH
SMT. SUNITHA B.H.)
2
AND:
1. SRI V. NAGESH
S/O. VENKATARAMANAPPA,
RESIDING AT DINNE HOSAHALLI VILLAGE,
NARASAPURA POST,
KOLAR TALUK & DISTRICT-563 101.
2. THE MANAGER
ICICI LOMBARD MOTOR INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO.62/1, RICHMOND ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 026.
... RESPONDENTS (COMMON)
(BY SRI M.V. CHANDRA SHEKARA REDDY, ADV., FOR R-1, &
SRI H.C. VRUSHABHENDRAIAH, ADV., FOR R-2)
***
THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS ARE FILED
UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22-4-2010 PASSED IN
M.V.C. NOS.2150 AND 2151 OF 2008 RESPECTIVELY ON THE FILE
OF JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE
CLAIM PETITIONS FOR COMPENSATION.
THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS ARE COMING ON
FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
These appeals are at the instance of the claimants
calling in question the correctness of the judgment and
award dated 22-4-2010 in M.V.C. Nos.2150 and 2151 of
2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Bengaluru.
2. The claim petitions were filed on the allegation
that on 17-11-2007 at about 7:20 p.m., when the
claimants were traveling in a car bearing Registration
No.KA-01 P 3595 from Kolar to Bengaluru and when they
reached near Chikkanahalli Gate, Nandagudi Hobli, a
lorry bearing Registration No.KA-26 2350 came from
opposite direction with high speed and dashed against the
car resulting in grievous injuries to the claimants.
3. Before the Tribunal, the claimants had made only
the owner and insurer of the lorry bearing Registration
No.KA-26 2350 as the respondents. Owner-insured of the
car in question and insurer of the car were not arrayed as
parties to the proceedings before the Tribunal.
Respondent No.1-owner of the lorry remained ex-parte.
Insurer of the lorry contested the proceedings and filed
detailed written statement. It is stated therein that the
Police had charge-sheeted the claimant-Chand Pasha,
Driver of the car.
4. During trial, the claimants examined themselves
as P.Ws.1 and 2, one Doctor was examined as P.W.3, and
an official from HOSMAT Hospital was examined as P.W.4
and Exs.P.1 to P.19 were marked. Respondents did not
examine any witness and no documents were marked.
5. After hearing the learned counsel on both sides,
the Tribunal dismissed the claim petitions.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants
strongly contended that even though charge-sheet is
against the claimant-Chand Pasha, both the claimants
have examined themselves and they are eyewitnesses and
they have stated very clearly that accident had occurred
on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its
Driver. In spite of the same, the Tribunal has held that
accident occurred on account of rash and negligent
driving of the claimant-Chand Pasha, even though, the
Driver of the lorry was not examined before the Tribunal.
He, therefore, submitted that the appeals are entitled to be
allowed and the matters should be remanded to the
Tribunal for fresh consideration.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance
Company, per contra, contended that the claimants did
not array the owner and insurer of the car in question as
respondents before the Tribunal. He submitted that
admittedly charge-sheet is filed against the claimant-
Chand Pasha. Evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 are self serving
versions and in the absence of the claimants examining
any independent witness to support their case, the
Tribunal was right and justified in dismissing the claim
petitions. He, therefore, submitted that there is no merit
in the appeals and they are liable to be dismissed.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides
and perused the records.
9. Admitted position is that, charge-sheet is filed
against the claimant-Chand Pasha, who was driving the
car in question at the time of accident. In spite of the
same, the claimants have not chosen to array the owner-
insured and the insurer of the car of which the claimant-
Chand Pasha was the Driver and another claimant was an
in-mate, as parties to the proceedings. The Tribunal
which had an opportunity of recording evidence of the
claimants, after detailed consideration of evidence, has
held that accident had taken place on account of rash and
negligent driving of the car in question by the claimant-
Chand Pasha. After appreciating the evidence placed
before the Tribunal, I am of the view that no fault can be
found with the findings of the Tribunal regarding
negligence as the versions of P.Ws.1 and 2 are necessarily
self serving and the charge-sheet is against the claimant-
Chand Pasha himself and the claimants have not
examined any independent witness to establish the fact
that the Driver of the lorry was negligent. There is no
error, or illegality in the findings recorded by the Tribunal
that accident had taken place on account of rash and
negligent driving of the car in question by the claimant-
Chand Pasha. There is no merit in these appeals and
they are liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
kvk
