Karnataka High Court
Sri.Anand @ Nandappa S/O. Lokappa ... vs Sri.Ramachandrasa S/O. Dashrathsa ... on 11 December, 2023
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14540
MFA No. 101638 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101638/2018 (MV)
BETWEEN:
SRI ANAND @ NANDAPPA
S/O. LOKAPPA RATHOD,
AGE: 39 YEARS,
OCC: DRIVER CUM SUPERVISOR,
R/O: BALAKUNDI, TQ: HUNGUND.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI H.M.DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE.)
AND:
1. SRI RAMACHANDRASA
S/O. DASHRATHSA MEGHARAJ,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: MEGHARAJ TRANSPORT MAIN ROAD,
GAJENDRAGAD, TALUK:RON,
DIST: GADAG.
Digitally
signed by 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
SUJATA
SUBHASH THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
PAMMAR SILVER JUBLEE CIRCLE, P B ROAD,
DHARWAD, DIST:DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ARUNA R. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 - NOTICE SERVED.)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.03.2018, PASSED IN
MVC NO.58/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-X, HUNGUND AND
TO AWARD REASONABLE COMPENSATION, ETC.,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14540
MFA No. 101638 of 2018
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the
judgment and award dated 16.03.2018, passed by the
Court of Senior Civil Judge and MACT-X, Hungund, in MVC
No.58/2017, thereby the claim petition was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case. It is the case of the
claimant that on 07.02.2007 at about 02.00 p.m. the
claimant was going on a motorcycle towards Balakundi
village on Ilkal-Hanumasagar road, near MML cross of
Balakundi Tanda, of Hungund taluk; at that time a lorry
No.KA-26/3715 came from opposite direction, dashed the
motorcycle, due to which the deceased fell on the road
and sustained injuries. Therefore, the claim petition was
filed under section 166 of the M.V.Act against the owner
and insurer of the lorry. The tribunal dismissed the claim
petition on the reason that there is a delay of 09 years 11
months 27 days in filing the claim petition from the date of
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14540
accident. Therefore on this ground alone the claim petition
is dismissed. Therefore, the claimant being aggrieved,
presented the appeal before this Court.
3. Heard the arguments and perused the material
placed before the Court.
4. In the present case the accident occurred on
07.02.2007. On the very same day the complaint was
lodged as per Ex.P.1 and FIR is Ex.P.2. The Investigating
Officer has filed the charge sheet against the driver of
lorry as per Ex.P.3.Therefore all these evidence prove that
the claimant sustained injuries in the accident that
occurred on 07.02.2017. It is true that the claimant has
not filed claim petition immediately after the accident or
within a reasonable period of time. The claim petition was
filed after 09 years 11 months 27 days from the date of
accident. Therefore, the claim petition came to be
dismissed. Just because there is delay of 09 years 11
months 27 days in filing the claim petition, whether the
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14540
tribunal is justified in dismissing the claim petition is a
question for consideration before this Court.
5. The tribunal has placed reliance on the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
M/s.Purohit and Company vs. Khatoonbee and
another, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 783. In that case the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed the claim. Before
applying this judgment, the facts therein are to be
considered. In that case the deceased died in a motor
vehicle accident which occurred on 02.02.1977. The
daughter of respondent died on 23.02.2005. After a period
of 28 years after the death of daughter of the respondent,
claim petition was filed in the year 2005. As on the date of
accident, M.V.Act 1988 was not in force.
6. Initially in the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 as per
sub section (3) of section 166, the limitation period was
six months for preferring the claim petition before the
tribunal; w.e.f. 14.11.1994 the said limitation is removed.
Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the claim
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14540
petition on the reason that within the limitation period of
six months the claim petition was not filed since the
accident is caused on 02.02.1977. Hence dismissed the
claim petition.
7. When the accident was taken place on
02.02.1977 and after coming into force of M.V.Act 1988,
the claim petition ought to have been filed within a period
of six months, but not filed within a period of six months.
Therefore, the claim petition was dismissed.
8. The facts of the case on hand are different from
the facts of the above cited case. In the present case the
accident was caused on 07.02.2007. As on the date of
accident there was no limitation to prefer claim. As
discussed above, w.e.f. 14.11.1994 the limitation clause
was removed from sub-section (3) of section 166 of the
M.V.Act. Therefore what law prevails when the accident
occurred, that is applicable. This is lost sight by the
tribunal. When there is no limitation prescribed for
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14540
preferring the claim petition, then dismissal of claim
petition on the ground of delay is not correct.
9. When from the police documentary evidence on
record it is proved that accident has occurred and claimant
suffered injuries in the said accident, thus, rejection of
claim petition on the ground that there is delay of 09 years
11 months 27 days is not correct for the reason that as on
the date of accident, in the present case there was no
limitation prescribed for preferring the claim petition
before the tribunal. Therefore in this regard the judgment
and award passed by the tribunal is liable to be set aside
and accordingly it is set aside.
10. In order to ascertain what are the nature of
injuries sustained and whether the amputation of right
lower limb can be sustained because of fractural injuries is
the disputed fact. Therefore the tribunal has to ascertain
this disputed fact regarding what are the injuries sustained
in the accident and whether it results amputation of right
leg can be considered on the factual aspects. Therefore
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14540
only so far as determination of compensation is concerned
the matter is required to be remanded to the tribunal, but
not on any other aspects. Hence the appeal is liable to be
allowed.
11. The claimant is entitled for interest from the
date of claim petition. Hence I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed.
ii) The judgment and award dated
16.03.2018, passed by the Court of Senior Civil
Judge and MACT-X, Hungund, in MVC
No.58/2017, is set aside.
iii) The matter is remanded to tribunal
for determination of compensation.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14540
iv) The claimant is entitled for interest
from the date of petition but not from the date
of accident.
v) The parties shall appear before the
tribunal on 03.01.2024 and the matter shall be
disposed of within a period of four months from
03.01.2024.
vi) No order as to costs.
SD/-
JUDGE
MRK
CT-ASC
