Smt.Ratnawwa W/O Basappa ... vs Prakash S/O Basappa Chinagundi ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 532 Kant

                                     1



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                    KALABURAGI BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022

                               PRESENT

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

                                   AND

       THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

                   M.F.A. NO.201928/2016 (MV)

BETWEEN:

1.     Smt. Ratnawwa W/o Basappa Chinagundi
       Age: 52 years, Occ: Household work

2.     Smt. Deepa W/o Aravind Chinagundi
       Age: 40 years, Occ: Household work

3.     Prem S/o Aravind Chinagundi
       Age: 16 years, Occ: Student 10th Standard

4.     Soumya D/o Aravind Chinagundi
       Age: 12 years, Occ: Student 7th Standard

5.     Sneha D/o Aravind Chinagundi
       Age: 12 years, Student 7th Standard

       Appellants 3 to 5 are minors, represented by
       Their next friend natural mother- appellant No.2
       Smt. Deepa W/o Aravind Chinagundi

6.     Santosh D/o Basappa Chinagundi
       Age: 33 years, Occ: Agriculture
       All are R/o Bijjargi, Tq. Dist. Bijapur-586101

                                                          ... Appellants
(By Sri Basavaraj.R.Math, Advocate)
                                     2



AND:

1.     Prakash S/o Basappa Chinagundi
       Age: 37 years, Occ: Agriculture
       R/o: Bijjargi, Tq.Dist: Bijapur-586101

2.     The Branch Manager
       The Oriental Insurance Company Limited
       Bidari Complex, S.S.Front Road, Bijapur-586101
                                                             ... Respondents
(By Sri Manvendra Reddy, Advocate for R2;
 R1 served)

        This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173 (1) of
MV Act, praying to set aside the impugned judgment and award dated
30.07.2016 passed by the MACT No.3, Vijaypur in MVC.No.692/2014 and
to allow the claim petition.

        This   appeal     coming   on   for     final   hearing   this   day,
S.R.Krishna Kumar J., delivered the following:


                               JUDGMENT

This appeal by the claimants is directed against the

impugned judgment and award dated 30.07.2016 passed by

the MACT-III, Vijayapur (for short the 'Tribunal') whereby the

claim petition filed by the appellants - claimants was dismissed

by the Tribunal.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and

learned counsel for respondent No.2 - Insurance Company

and perused the material on record. Respondent No.1 though

was served with the notice of this appeal, has chosen to

remain un-represented.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that

though the appellants-claimants adduced both oral and

documentary evidence in support of their contentions that the

deceased Basappa Chinagundi was proceeding along with his

relative Shrishail Kamagond on 18.09.2013 at about 2.00 p.m.

when the fatal road traffic accident occurred resulting in his

death and despite the respondents producing oral and

documentary evidence in support of their defence, the

Tribunal has not properly and correctly considered and

appreciated the pleadings and evidence and has instead

proceeded to pass the impugned judgment and award based

on surmises and conjunctures and without reference to the

material on record, thereby resulting in erroneous conclusion.

4. Under these circumstances, without expressing any

opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions, we

deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned

judgment and award and remit the matter back to the Tribunal

for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law after giving

one more opportunity to the parties to adduce further oral and

documentary evidence, if they so desire.

5. In the result, we pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is hereby allowed.

(ii) The impugned judgment and award passed in

MVC No.692/2014 dated 30.07.2016 by the

MACT No.III, Vijayapur is set aside. The

matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for

reconsideration afresh in accordance with law

after hearing both parties within a period of six

months from the date of receipt of a copy of

this order.

(iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the parties to

adduce such further oral and documentary

evidence, if any, in support of their claims. All

rival contentions are kept open. No opinion is

expressed on the same.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE swk