Karnataka High Court
Sri. A.C. Sanjay vs Sri. N. Hanumantha Kumar on 15 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:46071
MFA No. 4477 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4477 OF 2019 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4479 OF 2019 (MV-I)
IN MFA NO. 4477/2019
BETWEEN:
SRI. A. C. SANJAY,
S/O CHANDRA SHEKAR,
NOW AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.47,
KOLAMASANAPALLI VILLAGE & POST,
PALAMANER MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT (A.P).
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. GOPAL KRISHNA N, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by 1. SRI. N. HANUMANTHA KUMAR,
JAI JYOTHI J S/O H. NARAYANASHETTY,
Location: MAJOR IN AGE,
HIGH
COURT OF RESIDING AT NO.128, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
KARNATAKA AGARA-SARJAPUR MAIN ROAD,
NEAR LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA TEMPLE,
BENGALURU - 560 102.
2. THE BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
GOLDENL HEIGHTS, 4TH FLOOR,
59TH 'C' CROSS, 4TH M BLOCK,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:46071
MFA No. 4477 of 2019
RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P.S. KAILAS SHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. A.N. KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.10.2018 PASSED IN MVC
NO.6701/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, XVI
ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU,
(SCCH-14), DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO. 4479/2019
BETWEEN:
KUMARI. A. MEENA,
D/O A. DHAMODHAR,
NOW AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KOLAMASANAPALLI VILLAGE AND
POST, PALAMANER MANDAL,
CHITTOOR DISTRICT. (A.P.)
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. GOPAL KRISHNA N, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. N. HANUMANTHA KUMAR,
S/O H. NARAYANASHETTY,
MAJOR IN AGE,
RESIDING AT NO.128, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
AGARA-SARJAPUR MAIN ROAD,
NEAR LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA TEMPLE,
BENGALURU - 560 102.
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:46071
MFA No. 4477 of 2019
2. THE BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
GOLDENL HEIGHTS, 4TH FLOOR,
59TH 'C' CROSS, 4TH M BLOCK,
RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P.S. KAILAS SHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. A.N. KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.10.2018 PASSED IN MVC
NO.6701/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, XVI
ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU,
(SCCH-14), DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal filed by the claimants aggrieved by
the award passed in M.V.C.No.6701/2016 and
M.V.C.No.6702/2016 dated 16.10.2018 by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-14). The two
inmates of the car have filed the claim petitions under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming the
NC: 2023:KHC:46071
compensation of an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- for the
injuries sustained by the claimants in the road accident.
2. It is their case that on 13.12.2015 at about
11:30 p.m., the claimants were traveling towards
Palamner town from Bengaluru City in an Omni Car which
belongs to the father of the minor claimant in
M.V.C.No.6701/2016, who had driven the same at high
speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against
one unknown lorry, which was going ahead of it and hit to
the back side of the omni car. Due to the said impact,
both the claimants had sustained grievous injuries. The
accident had occurred due to the carelessness and rash
and negligent driving of the driver of the omni car and the
driver of the unknown vehicle.
3. The Court below had dismissed the claim petition
mainly on the ground that they are attributing the
negligence to the driver of the unknown vehicle and they
cannot claim compensation against the owner and insurer
NC: 2023:KHC:46071
of the vehicle as they are not able to trace out the said
unknown vehicle. Aggrieved thereby, the claimants are
before this Court.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants
submits that on 13.12.2015, the accident had taken place
and on 14.12.2015, the complaint was given by an
unknown person. In the complaint also, it is stated that
when the unknown vehicle was proceeding in front of the
car and without any indication, when he had applied the
brakes, the driver of the omni car, as he was driving the
car without maintaining a distance had dashed to the
same. It is submitted that it is their case that there is
negligence on the part of both the vehicles. Even if the
said vehicle is not traceable, when they have adduced the
evidence of PW.1, PW.2 - the claimants and PW.3 - the
eye witness, the Court below ought to have considered
that there is composite negligence on the part of the
driver of both the vehicles and ought to have granted the
compensation. Instead of doing so, the Court below as if
NC: 2023:KHC:46071
there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the omni
car had dismissed the claim petition. It is submitted that
the Court below without evaluating the evidence in its
proper perspective had dismissed the claim petition.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance
Company submits that they have not examined the driver
of the Omni car and the offending vehicle is not traceable.
It is for the purpose of claiming the compensation they
have developed the case stating that there is some
mistake on the part of the driver of the omni car. As per
the complaint also, the main negligence is attributed to
the driver of the unknown vehicle, which is not clear
according to them. Once they say that it is a lorry and
they also say that it is a canter. Learned counsel submits
that the Court below had rightly considered the evidence
and dismissed the claim petition.
6. Having heard the learned counsel on either side,
perused the entire material on record. In this case, in the
NC: 2023:KHC:46071
complaint and evidence, it is their consistent case that two
vehicles are moving, the unknown vehicle without any
indication had applied the sudden brake and as the driver
of the omni car was not maintaining any distance, he went
and dashed to the lorry. In that process, the claimants
had sustained the injuries. In the cases of this nature,
generally, in normal parlance, the Court would consider
that if the driver of the omni car was vigilant and if he was
maintaining a safe distance, even if the sudden brake was
applied, he could have avoided the accident. The Court
below without going into the said aspect had dismissed the
claim petition. Considering all these aspects and in the
interest of both the parties, this Court deems it
appropriate to remand the matter to the Court below
whereby both the parties are permitted to adduce further
evidence by examining the concerned and basing on that
the Court shall pass appropriate orders.
7. Accordingly, the award passed in
M.V.C.No.6701/2016 and M.V.C.No.6702/2016 dated
NC: 2023:KHC:46071
16.10.2018 is set aside and the matter is remanded back
to the Court below for fresh consideration.
i. Without further notice, the parties shall appear
before the Tribunal on 10.01.2024 and the Tribunal shall
decide the case within 6 months from 10.01.2024.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MEG
CT: BHK
