Kum.Rekha vs Ravi K B
2022 Latest Caselaw 3335 Kant

                            1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                       PRESENT

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR

                          AND
 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
               M.F.A NO.4296 OF 2021(MV)

BETWEEN :
KUM. REKHA
S/O LATE K. BASAVARAJAPPA KADLEPURA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/O HADONAHALLI VILLAGE
HONNALI TALUK
C/O SMT. JAYAMMA
W/O SIDDARAMAPPA
R/O OKKALIGARAKERI PURULE
HOLEBENAVALLU
SHIVAMOGGA-577 201                          ...APPELLANT

(BY SHRI. K.V. SATEESH CHANDRA, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1.     RAVI K.B
       S/O LATE BASAVARAJAPPA K
       AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
       R/O HOSAMALALI VILLAGE
       NYAMATHI TALUK
       DAVANAGERE-577 223

2.     THE MANAGER
       NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD
       1ST FLOOR, S.S.COMPLEX
       B.H.ROAD, SHIVAMOGAA-577 201
                                        ...RESPONDENTS
                              2




     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.09.06.2020 PASSED IN MVC
NO.821/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND CJM, ADDITIONAL MACT-VII, SHIVAMOGGA,
DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

      THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
P.S. DINESH KUMAR J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-


                          JUDGMENT

Unsuccessful claimant in a motor vehicle case has

filed this appeal challenging the dismissal of her claim

petition in MVC No.821/2018 vide judgment and award

dated June 9, 2020 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil

Judge and CJM (Addl. MACT-VII), Shimogga.

2. We have heard Shri. K.V. Sateesh Chandra, for

the appellant/claimant.

3. Brief facts of the case are, on April 30, 2018,

claimant's mother Gowramma was a pillion rider on the

two-wheeler, which her brother (K.B. Ravi first respondent

herein) was riding. To avoid dashing against a dog, first

respondent applied brake. Gowramma fell down and

sustained injuries. She died in the Hospital on May 1,

2018.

4. Claimant has filed the instant petition seeking

compensation from her brother. The Tribunal has

dismissed it on the ground that first respondent did not

possess a valid driving license. Hence, this appeal.

5. Shri. Sateesh Chandra submitted that Tribunal

has recorded a finding that first respondent was having

license to drive a light motor vehicle, valid till March 4,

2034. The Tribunal ought to have construed that first

respondent had basic knowledge of driving and could have

driven the two-wheeler also.

6. In the alternative, he submitted that the

Tribunal ought to have computed the compensation and in

view of the settled position of law directed the Insurer to

satisfy the award with liberty to recover from the first

respondent.

7. In substance, claimant who is none other than

the sister of first respondent wants the Tribunal to

compute the compensation and Insurer to pay the same

and recover subsequently. Such conduct cannot be

countenanced. Hence, no exception can be taken to the

dismissal of appellant's claim petition.

8. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed

with no order as to costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

DH/SPS