Sri Ramegowda vs Sri K R Ananda
2022 Latest Caselaw 5873 Kant

                              1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 31ST 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.1258 OF 2022 (MV-D)

BETWEEN :


1. SRI. RAMEGOWDA
   S/O NINGAPPA
   AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
   R/O MANJIHALLI, BANNUR
   KADUR TALUK
   CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT

2 . SMT. GANGAMMA
    W/O SRI. RAMEGOWDA
    AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
    R/O MANJIHALLI, BANUR
    KADUR TALUK
    CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT
                                     ...APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. K.N. MOHAN, ADVOCATE)

AND :

1.   SRI. K.R. ANANDA
     S/O RANGASWAMY
     AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
     DRIVER OF KA-18/C-1392
                             2




     RESIDENT OF KAREKALHALLI VILLAGE
     SAKARAYAPATTANA HOBLI
     KADUR TALUK
     CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT

2.   SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY K.S
     S/O LATE SAGANAPPA
     OWNER OF KA-18/C-1392
     GOODS VEHICLE
     RESIDENT OF KAREKALHALLI VILLAGE
     SAKARAYAPATTANA HOBLI
     KADUR TALUK
     CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT

3 . THE MANAGER
    ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
    CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101
                                        ...RESPONDENTS
                          ....

      THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.07.2021 PASSED
IN MVC NO. 268/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
SENIOR    CIVIL   JUDGE   AND    CJM,   MEMBER,   MACT,
CHIKKAMAGALURU, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION.


      THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
P.S. DINESH KUMAR J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
                                     3




                          JUDGMENT

Claimants in MVC No.268/2019 on the file of

Principal Senior Civil Judge, CJM & MACT,

Chikkamagaluru have have filed this appeal

challenging dismissal of their claim petition by

Judgment and award dated July 31, 2021.

2. Claimants approached the Tribunal

contending inter alia that their son Nagaraja was

riding his motor cycle on Banavara-Sakkarayapatna

road. A Bolero Maxi Truck bearing registration No. KA-

18/C-1392 dashed against Nagaraja's motor cycle. He

sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot.

3. Before the Tribunal, the respondents have

contested the claim petition. In their written

statements, first and second respondents have denied

the averments made in the claim petition contending

inter alia that the accident had not occurred due to

the negligence on the part of the driver of the Maxi

Truck. The insurer of the Maxi Truck has also filed

Statement of objections denying the petition

averments.

4. On the basis of the pleadings, Tribunal has

framed following issues:

1. Whether the petitioners prove that their son M.R.

Nagaraj died in the road traffic accident on 02.09.2018 at about 6.30 PM, near the coconut estate of Govindappa on Banavara-Sakharayapatna Road, due to the rash and negligent driving of Bolero Maxi Truck bearing Regn. No.KA-18/C-1392 by the 1st respondent, as averred in the petition?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If yes, for what amount and from whom?

3. What order or award?

5. On behalf of claimants P.W.1 to P.W.3 have

been examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P18 marked. On

behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 and R.W.2 have

been examined and Ex.R1 to Ex.R12 marked.

6. Answering issues No. 1 and 2 in the

negative, the Tribunal has dismissed the claim

petition.

7. Perusal of cross-examination of P.W.1

shows that she is not an eye-witness. P.W.2 is one

Eshwarappa. He has admitted in the

cross-examination that he had not seen the accident.

8. The Insurance Company has examined its

Officer as R.W.1. He is also not an eye-witness and his

evidence is not much valuable. R.W.2 is the Circle

Inspector of Kadur. He has admitted in the

cross-examination that complaint was given on

September 3, 2018, by Nagaraja's brother and the

details of the offending vehicle. He has admitted that

he has recorded Eshwarappa's statement on

September 3, 2018. He has conducted inquest

Panchanama on the said date between 7.30 a.m. and

10.00 a.m. According to him, Eshwarappa had come

to the spot on that date. He has also admitted that he

has not taken Eshwarappa's signature in the 'spot

Panchanama'.

9. Thus, in substance, prosecution's case is,

complaint was received in respect of an unknown

vehicle having caused the accident. Cross-examination

of the Investigating Officer shows that he has

conducted the spot panchanama on September 6,

2018. According to him, Eshwarappa was present at

the time of spot inspection and the Investigating

Officer has learnt about the vehicle number of the

offending vehicle from Eshwarappa, but he has not

recorded his presence in the Panchanama.

10. It is relevant to note that as recorded

hereinabove, Eshwarappa, P.W.2 has admitted in his

cross-examination that he had not seen the vehicle.

Therefore, he could not have given the vehicle number

to the Investigating Officer. Thus, there is serious

contradiction in the evidence of P.W.2 and the

Investigation Officer, R.W.2.

11. It is also noteworthy that in the inquest

panchanama conducted on September 3 2018,

between 7.30 a.m. and 10.00 a.m., it is stated that a

Mahindra Bolero vehicle driven by first respondent had

caused the accident. But, the evidence of

Investigating Officer reveals that he learnt about the

vehicle number from P.W.2 on September 6, 2018. In

view of such contradictions, the Tribunal has rightly

held that the claimants had failed to prove the

involvement of the offending vehicle. Hence, no

exception can be taken to the the Tribunal's

judgment.

12. Resultantly, this appeal must fail and it is

accordingly dismissed.

No costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

SPS