Karnataka High Court
Mr Ismail vs Mr Armugam on 10 June, 2022
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6869/2016(MVC)
BETWEEN:
MR. ISMAIL,
AGED 52 YEARS,
S/O. LATE MOIDEEN KUNHI,
R/AT KEKUDE HOUSE,
SAVANOOR POST AND VILLAGE,
PUTTUR TALUK
D.K.-574 202
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR. ARMUGAM,
AGED 43 YEARS,
S/O. THANGARAJ,
R/AT D.NO.246, JYOTHI NAGAR,
KUNJATHBAIL POST, KAVOOR,
MANGALURU,
D.K. - 575 015
2. SRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
E-8 RICO INDUSTRIAL AREA,
SITAPURA, JAIPURA,
RAJASTHAN - 302 022
REPRESENTED BY IT MANAGER
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
2
R1 - NOTICE DISPENSED WITH V/O. DTD.04.06.2019)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1)
OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
24.08.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.561/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, MANGALORE
D.K., DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed under Section-173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, by the appellant-claimant challenging the judgment
and award dated 24.08.2015, passed In MVC No.561/2013, on
the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT,
Mangaluru.
Brief facts:
2. It is stated that on 03.03.2013 at about 04.30 p.m.,
at Jesus Wood Industries, Nandalike village, Karkala taluk, the
appellant while supervising the loading of wood pieces through
Crane bearing Registration No.KA-19-MA-8696, the driver of the
crane, all of sudden, without giving any signal, in a negligent
manner dashed to the appellant and the crane tyre passed over
the appellant. Due to the said impact, the appellant sustained
grievous injuries.
3. It is further stated that after the said accident, he
was shifted to KMC Hospital, Manipal for first aid treatment and
thereafter, he was shifted and admitted to Tejaswini Hospital,
Kadri, Mangaluru for further treatment, where he has taken
treatment as inpatient from 3.3.2013 to 18.04.2013. He has
spent more than Rs.3,00,000/- towards medical treatment. He
was working as a transporter of woods to customers under
contract basis and earning Rs.25,000/- per month.
4. The Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition without
making any quantification of compensation amount. The
Tribunal has straightaway dismissed the petition on the ground
that there was no road traffic accident. The contention of the
Insurance company-respondent No.2 is that the claimant had
fallen from height.
5. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the
appellant and the learned counsel for respondents and Perused
the materials on record.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant submitted
that appreciation of evidence by the Tribunal is not correct and
perverse in nature. Further, submitted that even though the
claimant had sustained injuries in the accident, without
considering the same, the Tribunal has wrongly come to the
conclusion that the claimant had fallen from a height and
therefore, dismissed the claim petition, which is not correct.
Therefore, prays for setting aside the judgment and award
passed by the Tribunal.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2- Insurance company submitted that the
Tribunal has correctly appreciated the evidence on record and
has rightly come to the conclusion that there was no road traffic
accident and the claimant had suffered injuries due to the fall
from height. Therefore, prays for dismissal of the appeal.
8. Considering the submissions made by learned
counsel for the appellant, though there are sufficient material
evidence to show that there was road traffic accident and in the
said accident, the appellant-claimant suffered injuries, the
Tribunal dismissed the claim petition by holding that the
accident was due to a fall from height and without making any
quantification of the compensation. But it is argued that the
appellant was working under the employment of respondent
No.1, and there was road traffic accident and in the said accident
the appellant-claimant suffered injuries during the course of
employment. Therefore, under these circumstances, the
Tribunal ought to have made quantification of compensation on
different heads, but the Tribunal has not determined the
compensation on each head to be awarded. Therefore, without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and without
appreciating evidence on record, since the appreciation of
evidence is completely left to the Tribunal, the matter requires to
be remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration for
determining the aspect of rash and negligent act, liability and
determining the quantum of compensation. Even though the
counsel for the appellant argued that there is evidence to show
that there is a road traffic accident and in the said accident the
appellant sustained injuries, the appreciation of the same
through evidence is left to the Tribunal.
9. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the case and by keeping open all contentions of all the
parties, the matter is required to be remanded to the Tribunal
for fresh consideration as observed above. Therefore, the
judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set
aside by allowing the appeal. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed.
ii. The judgment and award dated 24.08.2015, passed
In MVC No.561/2013, on the file of the II Additional
Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Mangaluru, is hereby
set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal
for fresh consideration.
iii. Liberty is reserved to all the parties to adduce
further evidence of both oral and documentary, if
they so wish.
iv. The parties are directed to appear before the
Tribunal on 01.07.2022.
v. The Trial Court records shall be transmitted to the
Tribunal along with a copy of this order, forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SKS
