Mr. Ajaykumar G @ Ajay vs M Kumaresh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3865 Kant

                           1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                        PRESENT

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

                          AND

            THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

     MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL.No.4169/2021(MV-I)

BETWEEN:

MR. AJAYKUMAR.G. @ AJAY,
S/O GOVINDAPPA.G.,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/AT D.No.4-39-2,
S.C.COLONY, CHIPPAGIRI VILLAGE,
ALUR, KURNOOL DISTRICT,
ANDHRAPRADESH.                           ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI.GURUPRASAD.B.R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     M.KUMARESH,
       ADULT,
       M/S YSM ENTERPRISES,
       SMITHA HOUSE,
       YEYYADI, MANGALURU - 575 008.

2.     THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
       2ND FLOOR, BHARATH BUILDING,
       P.M.RAO ROAD, HAMPANAKATTA,
       MANGALURU - 575 002.
       REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
                                    ... RESPONDENTS
                                     2



     THIS APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
18.06.2020 PASSED IN MVC No.1781/2017 ON THE FILE OF
THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT-II,
MANGALURU D.K., DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
P.S.DINESH KUMAR. J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                             JUDGMENT

This appeal is presented by the injured claimant in

MVC.No.1781/2017 challenging the judgment and award

dated 18.06.2020 passed by I Additional District Judge and

Additional MACT-II, Mangaluru, D.K., whereby the claim

petition filed by the claimant has been dismissed. He has

sought for setting aside the same and for awarding

compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be

referred as per their status before the Tribunal.

3. Heard Shri B.R. Guruprasad, learned advocate for

the claimant.

4. Sri.Guruprasad submits that the claim petition has

been dismissed as not maintainable on the premise that the

claimant while repairing the earth moving equipment,

sustained injuries.

5. Thus, the admitted position is, the claimant was

called to repair the earth moving equipment. The driver of

the vehicle accidentally started the engine and claimant

sustained injuries while repairing the vehicle. Therefore, this

is not a case of motor vehicle accident.

6. Hence, no exception can be taken to the judgment

of the Tribunal. Resultantly, this appeal fails and it is

accordingly dismissed.

No costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE RK CT:SN