Karnataka High Court
Ravi vs Rafeeq Pasha on 11 October, 2022
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
M.F.A.NO.645/2013 (MV)
BETWEEN:
RAVI
S/O PUTTASWAMY,
24 YEARS,
R/O GOWDAGERE VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201.
AS THE APPELLANT IS SUFFERING
FROM MENTAL DISORDER,
HE IS R/BY HIS NATURAL FATHER AND GUARDIAN
PUTTASWAMY S/O THIMMEGOWDA,
RESIDING IN THE ABOVE ADDRESS.
... APPELLANT
(BY SMT A.R.SHARADAMBA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAFEEQ PASHA
S/O ABDUL RASHEED
MAJOR, BAGURU ROAD,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201,
(OWNER OF CANTER LORRY
BEARING REGN.NO.KA-19-B-1758).
2
2. THE MANAGER
THE NEW INDIA ASSURRANCE CO.,
2ND FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING,
G.H.S. ROAD, DAKSHINA KANNADA
(POLICY NO.670800-31-05-01-00004150
PERIOD:17.01.2006 TO 16.01.2007). ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI P.B.RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 IS SERVED)
THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.10.2012
PASSED IN MVC NO.29/2011 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING
OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, CHANNARAYAPATNA,
DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and
the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and
award dated 09.10.2012, passed in M.V.C.No.29/2011 on the file
of the Fast Track Court at Channarayapatna ('the Tribunal' for
short).
3. The parties are referred to as per their original
rankings before the Tribunal to avoid confusion and for the
convenience of the Court.
4. The factual matrix of the case of the claimant before
the Tribunal is that on 27.11.2006 at about 9:00 a.m, when he
was coming to Channarayapatna in a motorcycle bearing
registration No.KA-03-EV-7472 along with P.W.2 as a pillion
rider, the Lorry came behind and dashed against the said
vehicle, as a result, he had sustained the head injuries.
Immediately, he was taken to K.R.Hospital and also to
NIMHANS, Bengaluru, wherein, he took treatment as an
inpatient. The natural guardian was examined as P.W.1 before
the Tribunal since the injured had sustained head injury. He
examined P.W.2, who is the rider of the motorcycle and also
examined the Doctor as P.W.3 and got marked the documents
marked as Exs.P1 to P56. The respondents have examined one
witness as R.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.R1 to
R5.
5. The Tribunal, after considering both oral and
documentary evidence available on record, dismissed the claim
petition. Hence, the present appeal is filed by the claimant.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/claimant would vehemently contend that the finding
given by the Tribunal is that no damages on the rear portion of
the motor cycle and only damages found on the front portion of
the motorcycle, is not correct. When the heavy vehicle hit the
moving motorcycle naturally the front portion of the vehicle
damages and also taken note of the minor discrepancy that
when the injured was taken to the hospital, the history was
given that he was driving the motorcycle and not as a pillion
rider and failed to take note of the material on record,
particularly, the complaint was given on the same day and the
charge-sheet is also filed against the driver of the Lorry and the
driver of the Lorry also admitted the guilt and pleaded guilty and
not led any contra evidence except examining the official witness
- R.W.1, who is the eye witness to the incident and the Tribunal
has committed an error.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.2/Insurance Company would vehemently contend that the
Tribunal while answering issue No.1 in detail discussed in
paragraph Nos.13, 14 and 15 and given the reason that the
accident has not been proved. Apart from that the Tribunal had
given the reason as discrepancy and also given the history as hit
by a Lorry while he was driving a two wheeler. Hence, it is clear
that he was driving the vehicle and not proceeding as pillion
rider. Hence, it does not require any interference.
8. Having heard the respective counsel and on perusal
of the material available on record, the injured had sustained
grievous head injuries. Immediately he was taken to the
Channarayapatna Hospital. Thereafter, he was shifted to Bellur
Adichunchanagiri Hospital and then K.R.Hospital, Bengaluru.
Having perused the material on record, the accident was taken
place on 27.11.2006 at 9:00 a.m., and on the same day, the
complaint was given by one Ravi son of Thammannegowda,
wherein, he has stated that the Lorry hit the motorcycle and its
rear portion, as a result, the injured had sustained the injuries.
No doubt, in the Wound Certificate, it is mentioned that he was
riding the motorcycle and he had sustained the injuries, but no
document of history given is placed before the Tribunal except
mentioning the Wound Certificate, no material that who has
given the history and the fact that the injured has sustained the
head injury is not in dispute. Only mentioning of the history in
the Wound Certificate that he was riding the motorcycle, the
Tribunal comes to such a conclusion. The fact that the Lorry hit
the motorcycle on the rear side is mentioned in the complaint
itself on the very same day. The complainant has not been
examined before the Trial Court, instead P.W.2, who claims that
he was riding the motorcycle has been examined. Though he
claims that he was driving the motorcycle and he has given the
complaint and the records discloses that he has not given any
complaint. In terms of Ex.P4, the complaint was given by Ravi
son of Thammannegowda. The driver of the Lorry also admitted
the guilt and pleaded guilty and to substantiate the same, the
document - Ex.P1 is marked, wherein, it discloses that he
pleaded guilty and paid the fine amount of Rs.1,000/- for an
offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC and Rs.1,000/- for
an offence under Section 338 of IPC. When such being the
material on record, when there is no any delay in lodging the
complaint and in the complaint also specific averment is made
that the Lorry came behind and hit the motorcycle, in order to
controvert the document - Ex.P1, no evidence has been led by
the Insurance Company and also not examined the Investigating
Officer to counter the case of the claimant. When such being the
case, it is a fit case to remand the matter for re-consideration
and the claimant is also given an opportunity to examine the
complainant before the Tribunal and the Insurance Company is
also given liberty to contest the case by examining the
Investigating Officer with regard to the allegation of false
implication and also counter the evidence of the claimant,
particularly, documents-Exs.P1, P2, P3 and P4 and no material
before the Court to show that who has given the history at the
time of injured when he was taken to the hospital and hence it
requires further material for consideration of the case.
9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the
Tribunal dated 09.10.2012, passed in
M.V.C.No.29/2011, is set aside.
(iii) The matter is remanded to the Tribunal to
consider the matter afresh in the light of the
observations made by this Court.
(iv) This is the matter of the year 2013. Hence, the
Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter
within six months.
(v) The parties are directed to appear before the
Tribunal on 02.11.2022 without expecting any
separate notice from the Tribunal.
(vi) Both the parties and the respective counsel are
directed to assist the Tribunal to dispose of the
case within the stipulated period of six months.
(vii) The Registry is directed to transmit the records
to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith to enable
both the parties and the respective counsel to
appear before the Tribunal on 02.11.2022.
Sd/-
JUDGE
cp*
