Gangawwa vs Mahadev And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 10487 Kant

                            1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  KALABURAGI BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

                        BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR


              MFA No.202336/2017 (MV)

BETWEEN:

GANGAWWA W/O BASAVARAJ
@ TIPPARAYA DONUR,
AGE: 30 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O GANESH NAGAR,
B.BAGEWADI, DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586101

                                            ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANGANABASAVA B PATIL, ADVOCATE)


AND:

1.     MAHADEV S/O PARAPPA GALAGALI
       AGE:40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
       R/O NAGANUR, T: JAMKHANDI
       DIST: BAGALKOT-587301

2.     THE BRANCH MANAGER
       NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
       1ST FLOOR, HERALAGI BUILDING
       BEHIND SIDDESHWAR TEMPLE
       VIJAYAPUR

                                        ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. BIRADAR VIRANAGOUDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. S.S.ASPALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
                              2




      THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED-
28.09.2017 PASSED BY THE COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, VIJAYAPUR AT-VIJAYAPUR IN MVC NO.
136/2016, AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL AS CLAIMED AMOUNT OF
RS.15,00,000/- BY THE APPELLANTS IN THE CLAIM PETITION
BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-


                           ORDER

Though this matter is listed for admission, by the

consent of the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

2. This appeal is filed by the appellant-

petitioner under Section 173(1) of M.V.Act,

challenging the judgment and award dated

28.09.2017 passed in MVC No.136/2006 by the MACT,

Vijayapura, whereby the tribunal has dismissed the

claim petition.

3. For the sake of convenience, parties are

referred with the ranks occupied by them before the

Tribunal.

4. The petitioner has filed the claim petition

under Section 166 of M.V.Act, claiming compensation

of Rs.15,00,000/- in respect of injuries sustained by

her in the road traffic accident dated 14.11.2015.

According to the petitioner, on 14.11.2015 at about

3.00 p.m., she was travelling as a pillion rider on the

motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-48/U-3314 and

proceeding towards B.Bagewadi and near the land of

one Sangappa Naroti, the rider of the motorcycle rode

it in a rash and negligent manner, as a result she fell

on the road and sustained injuries. According to

petitioner, the respondent No.1 is the owner of the

offending vehicle and respondent No.2 is the insurer

of the offending vehicle.

5. The respondent No.1 denied the

allegations and assertions made in the claim petition.

However, he admits regarding his ownership of the

vehicle but denied other allegations including

involvement of his vehicle. The respondent No.2-

insurer appeared and filed objections denying the

allegations and assertions made in the claim petiton.

6. It is contended that the petitioner, her

brother and respondent No.1 in collusion with the

police officials managed to plant the insured

motorcycle in the accident to have an unlawful gain

and they disputed the involvement of the vehicle and

sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

7. After appreciating the oral and

documentary evidence, the tribunal has dismissed the

claim petition filed under Section 166 of M.V.Act on

the basis of admissions given by the petitioner that

she was proceeding on the motorcycle of her brother,

which does not have any records and subsequently

the vehicle belonging to respondent No.1 was

implicated.

8. Being aggrieved by this judgment and

award passed by the tribunal, the appellant-petitioner

has filed this appeal.

9. Heard the arguments and perused the

records.

10. It is the specific contention of the petitoner

that on 14.11.2015, she was traveling on the

motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-48/U-3314 and

because of the negligent riding by the rider, she fell

on the road and sustained injuries. There is no dispute

of the fact that respondent No.1 is the owner of the

offending vehicle. However, respondent No.1 has

denied the accident and involvement of his vehicle.

Further, the respondent No.2 has specifically

contended that the petitioner, her brother and

respondent No.1 by colluding with each other

implicated the offending vehicle in the accident.

11. It is to be noted here that the accident has

occurred on 14.11.2015 at about 3.00 p.m., but the

complaint was lodged on 15.11.2015 at 8.15 p.m. and

there is delay in lodging the complaint which is not

properly explained. However, the material admissions

given by the petitioner/PW.1 is relevant as she has

admitted that she was traveling as a pillion rider on

the motorcycle of her brother and as the two wheeler

of her brother does not have any proper

documentation, the vehicle of respondent No.1 was

implicated. This admission is fatal to the case of

petitioner/appellant which reads as under;

"ªÀÄ®è¥Àà PÀqÀ¥nÀ Ö £À£Àß CtÚ CAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. CªÀ£ÀÄ ºÉƸÀ ªÉÆÃlgï ¸ÉÊPÀ¯ï vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÀÝ, CªÀ£ÀÄ C¥ÀWÁvÀQAÌ vÀ ªÀÄÄAZÉ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 8 ªÀµÀðzÀ°è ¸ÀzjÀ ªÉÆÃmÁgï ¸ÉÊPÀ¯ï£ÀÄß PÉÆAqÀÄPÉÆArzÀÝ, D ¢£À £ÀªÀÄä CtÚ ªÀÄ®è¥Àà£À ªÉÆÃmÁgï ¸ÉÊPÀ¯ï£À°è £Á£ÀÄ »AzÉ PÀĽvÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛz.ÉÝ ------£Á£ÀÄ PÀĽvÀÄ ºÉÆgÀl ªÉÆÃmÁgï ¸ÉÊPÀ¯ï £ÀªÀÄä CtÚ ªÀĮ襤 Àà UÉ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀnÖzÄÀ Ý EgÀÄvÀÛz.É £À£Àß vÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄ£É £ÁUÀ£ÀÆgÀÄ EgÀÄvÀÛz.É 1£Éà JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀ ¸À»vÀ £ÁUÀ£ÀÆgÀÄ UÁæªÀÄzÀª¤ À zÀÄÝ DvÀ£À ¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄ EgÀÄvÀÛz.É ¸ÀzjÀ 1£Éà JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀ ªÀĺÁzÉêÀ UÀ®UÀ° CªÀgÀzÀÄ ªÉÆÃmÁgï ¸ÉÊPÀ¯ï EgÀÄvÀÛz.É £À£Àß CtÚ ªÀÄ®è¥Àà£À ªÉÆÃmÁgï ¸ÉÊPÀ¯ï£À PÁUÀzÀ¥vÀ Àæ ¸Àj

EgÀ°®è C£ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj, PÁgÀt £À£Àß CtÚ vÀ£Àß ªÉÆÃlgï ¸ÉÊPÀ¯ï ¸ÀªÉÄÃvÀ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ¸À¼ Ü ÀzÀ°Aè iÉÄà ©lÄÖ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÁÛ£É CAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £ÀAvÀgÀ 1£Éà JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ ªÉÆÃlgï ¸ÉÊPÀ¯ï vÀAzÀÄ F C¥ÀWÁvÀzÀ°è ¸ÉÃj¸À¯ÁVzÉ CAzÀgÉ ¸Àj"

12. Hence, this admission on the part of

petitioner/PW.1 clealy disclose that the vehicle

belonging to respondent No.1 bearing registration

No.KA-48/U-3314 was not at all involved in the

accident, but the vehicle belonging to the brother of

petitioner was involved in the accident as she was

traveling on the said vehicle as a pillion rdier. It is also

evident from her admission that as the said vehicle

was not having any proper documentation, the

offending vehicle was involved. Nothing more is

required to discard the entire case of the petitioner in

view of the direct admission on the part of the

petitioner regarding implication of the offending

vehicle. The tribunal has considered all these aspects

and appreciated the oral and documentary evidence in

proper perspective and considering the admissions

given by petitioner that the vehicle of her brother was

involved but vehicle of respondent No.1 was

implicated, has rightly dismissed the claim petition.

The judgment and award passed by the tribunal

cannot be said to be illegal or erroneous so as to call

for any interference. Hence, the appeal being devoid

of any merits needs to be rejected.

13. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the

following;

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed with costs throughout.

Sd/-

JUDGE

msr