Roopa W/O Sanjeevkumar Kokatanur ... vs Shri Shivappa S/O Channappa ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 534 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.201823/2016 (MV)

BETWEEN:

1.     Roopa W/o Sanjeev Kumar Kokatanur
       Age: 33 years, Occ: Household Work

2.     Sagar S/o Sanjeev Kumar Kokatanur
       Age: 19 years, Occ: Student

3.     Basappa @ Basavaraj S/o Siddappa Kokatanur
       Age: 65 years, Occ: Pensioner

4.     Kamala W/o Basappa @ Basavaraj Kokatanur
       Age: 61 years, Occ: Household Work

       All R/o. C/o Ramesh S/o Basavaraj Kokatanur
       Plot No.6, Nimbaragi Badawane
       Near Hotel Town Palace, Toravi Road
       Vijayapur - 586 101
                                         ... Appellants

(By Sri Babu H. Metagudda, Advocate)
                              2



AND:

1.     Shri Shivappa S/o Channappa Betageri
       Age: 45 years, Occ: Business & Agriculture
       R/o. A/p: Hulakund, Tq: Ramadurga
       Begaum - 586 101

2.     The Branch Manager
       The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
       1st Floor, Bidari Complex
       S.S. Front Road, Vijayapur-586 101
                                            ... Respondents

(Sri J. Augustin, Advocate for R2;
 R1 - served)

     This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, praying to allow the
appeal and set aside the Judgment and Award dated 15-
03-2016 passed in M.V.C. No.1397/2013 by the II Accident
Claims Tribunal No.VI at Vijayapur and award the
compensation of Rs.46,35,000/- with 12% interest.

     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 15.03.2016 passed

in MVC No.1397/2013 by the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal No.VI, Vijaypur (for short 'the Tribunal'), whereby

the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed by the

claimants.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-

claimants and the learned counsel for respondent No.2-

insurance company and perused the material on record.

3. In addition to reiterating the various

contentions urged in the memorandum of appeal and

referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the

appellants submits that the impugned judgment and award

passed by the Tribunal coming to the conclusion that the

insured vehicle i.e., Tempo Trax Cruiser Jeep bearing

No.KA-35/M-4532 is not involved in the accident in

question is contrary to the material on record and opposed

to law as well as the facts and probabilities of the case and

the Tribunal has failed to properly consider and appreciate

the material on record, in particular Exs.P1 to P20 coupled

with the unimpeached evidence of the owner, RW.1

(Shivappa) and other evidence which clearly establishes

that the insured vehicle was involved in the accident in

question. It is therefore submitted that the impugned

judgment and award passed by the Tribunal deserves to

be set aside.

4. In support of his contentions, learned counsel

for the appellants relies upon a decision of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of Saroj and others vs. Het Lal

and others reported in 2011 Kant M.A.C. 247 (SC) and

the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in

Sumangala vs. Virupakshi and others reported in 2012

Kant M.A.C. 61 (Kant), in order to contend that filing of

a charge sheet against the owner/driver of the insured

vehicle and admission of involvement of the vehicle in the

accident are sufficient to come to the conclusion that the

vehicle insured by respondent No.2-insurance company

was involved in the accident.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent

No.2-insurance company submits that having regard to the

motor vehicle accident report and the material on record

as noticed by the Tribunal, the impugned judgment and

award passed by the Tribunal coming to the correct

conclusion that the insured vehicle was not involved in the

accident is just and proper and the same does not warrant

interference by this Court.

6. Though several contentions have been urged

by both sides in support of their respective claims, a

perusal of the impugned judgment and award will indicate

that the Tribunal has not considered and appreciated the

pleadings and evidence on record in their proper

perspective and has also not correctly applied the

principles regarding grant of compensation in motor

vehicle accident cases. Under these circumstances, without

expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits and rival

contentions and in order to enable the Tribunal to

reconsider the matter afresh in accordance with law after

giving another opportunity in favour of the parties, we

deem it just and proper to set aside the impugned

judgment and award and remit the matter back to the

Tribunal for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law

within a stipulated time frame.

7. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The

impugned judgment and award dated 15.03.2016 passed

by the Tribunal in MVC No.1397/2013 is hereby set aside.

The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for

reconsideration afresh as expeditiously as possible and

preferably within a period of six months from the date of

receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

LG