Karnataka High Court
The United India vs Munirajappa @ Rajanna on 29 March, 2022
Bench: P.S.Dinesh Kumar, M G Uma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G. UMA
M.F.A NO.9302 OF 2015
C/W
M.F.A NO.8844 OF 2015 (MV-D)
IN M.F.A No.9302 OF 2015
BETWEEN :
MUNIRAJAPPA
@ RAJANNA
S/O BYRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
PERMANENTLY R/AT NO.1
SEETHAKEMPANAHALLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT
TEMPORARILY R/AT
C/O ANUSUYAMMA
NO. 23/131, 4TH CROSS
SARASWATHIPURAM,
NANDINI LAYOUT
BANGALORE-560 096. ...APPELLANT
(BY SHRI. H.K. SATHEESH, ADVOCATE)
2
AND :
1. GIRISH S.M
NO.1, SEETHAKEMPANAHALLI
VILLAGE, KAKOLU POST
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD., NO.25
SANKARANARAYANA BUILDING
M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2
- THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE;
R1-SERVED)
....
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.06.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1465/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE AND XXXIII ACMM, MEMBER-MACT, (SCCH-5),
BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A No.8844 OF 2015
BETWEEN :
THE UNITED INDIA
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
NO.25, SANKARANARAYANA BUILDING
M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. ...APPELLANT
(BY SHRI. O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE)
3
AND :
1. MUNIRAJAPPA
@ RAJANNA
S/O BYRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT
NO.1, SEETHAKEMPANAHALLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT
TEMPORARILY RESIDING AT
C/O ANUSUYAMMA
NO. 23/131, 4TH CROSS
SARASWATHIPURAM, NANDINI LAYOUT
BANGALORE-560 096
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
B.M.T.C. SHANTHINAGAR
BANGALORE-560 027
3. GIRISH S.M
MAJOR
NO.1, SEETHAKEMPANAHALLI
VILLAGE, KAKOLU POST
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI
BANGALORE RURAL
DISTRICT-562 123. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. H.K. SATHEESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI. F.S. DABALI, ADVOCATE R2;
R3-SERVED
....
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.06.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1465/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 8TH ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE, 33RD ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU,
AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.5,69,000/- WITH
INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
REALIZATION.
4
THESE MFAs COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
P.S. DINESH KUMAR J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT
These two appeals are filed by the claimants and
the Insurer challenging the Judgment and award
dated June 9, 2015 in MVC No.1465/2013 on the file
of VIII Additional Small Causes Judge and MACT,
Bengaluru.
2. M.F.A. No.9302/2015 is filed by the
claimants seeking enhancement and M.F.A.
8844/2015 is filed by the Insurer challenging the
liability.
3. Heard Shri. H.K.Satheesh, learned
Advocate for the claimant, Shri. O. Mahesh, learned
Advocate for the Insurer and Shri. F.S.Dabali, learned
Advocate for B.M.T.C.
4. For the sake of convenience, parties shall
be referred as per their status in the Tribunal.
5. Claimant approached the Tribunal
contending inter alia that his wife Gayithramma was a
pillion rider on a motorcycle. The offending vehicle
belonging to the BMTC1 dashed on the hind side of the
motorcycle. Gayithramma sustained grievous injuries
and died.
6. Before the Tribunal, claimant was
examined as P.W.1 and Exs. P1 to P15 marked. On
behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 to R.W.3 were
examined and no document was marked. Tribunal
framed following issues for its consideration:
1. Whether the petitioner proves that deceased
Gayathri died due to injuries sustained in a road
traffic accident that occurred on 29.01.2012, at
about 8.20 p.m. on Rajanakunte, Banashankari
Layout due to rash & negligent driving of the driver
Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation
of the BMTC bus bearing registration No.KA-01-
FA-735?
2. Whether the petitioner proves that he is legal
representative of deceased?
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any
compensation as claimed? If so, to what extent and
from whom?
4. What order or award?
7. Answering issue No.1 partly in the
affirmative, issue No.2 in the affirmative, Tribunal has
awarded Rs.5,69,000/- as compensation, payable with
interest at 6% p.a. The claim petition against BMTC
has been dismissed and claim against respondents No.
2 and 3 have been allowed.
8. Shri. O. Mahesh, for the Insurer adverting
to the issues and the findings recorded by the
Tribunal, pointed out that the first issue is whether
petitioner proves that Gayithri died due to the injuries
sustained due to the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the bus belonging to BMTC. He submitted
that while recording the finding on issue No.1, the
Tribunal has held that the rider of the two-wheeler is
responsible for the accident and answered issue No.1
partly in the affirmative. He argued that the
conclusion of the Tribunal is not in consonance with
the reasons recorded. Therefore, the matter requires
reconsideration at the hands of the Tribunal.
9. Learned Advocate for the claimants argued
in support of the Tribunal's judgment and submitted
that in view of long pendency of the case, this Court
may decide the issue.
10. We have carefully considered rival
contentions and perused the records.
11. As recorded hereinabove, the question
which fell for consideration of the Tribunal in issue
No.1 is, whether Gayithri died due to the injuries
sustained in the accident caused due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the bus. While
answering this issue, the Tribunal has recorded thus:
"10. .... On going through the citations relied
upon by petitioner in this case, the rider of two-
wheeler is responsible for the accident, is evident.
Accordingly, I am obliged to answer issue No.1 in the
affirmative.(Sic.)"
(Emphasis Supplied)
12. Having recorded as above, the Tribunal has
answered issue No.1 partly in the affirmative.
Further, in the final judgment, the petition against
BMTC has been dismissed. Thus, the judgment has
been passed without proper application of mind and
hence, it is unsustainable in law.
13. In the result, the appeal filed by the
Insurer must succeed. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(a) M.F.A. 8824/2015 is allowed. The
judgment and award dated June 9, 2015 in M.V.C.
No.1465/2013 passed by the Tribunal is set-aside and
the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for fresh
consideration in accordance with law;
(b) Consequently, M.F.A. No.9302/2015 filed
by the claimant does not survive for consideration and
it is accordingly disposed of;
(c) The statutory deposit made by the Insurer
before this Court, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal
forthwith, to refund the same to the Insurer.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SPS
