Karnataka High Court
Vijayakumar B.R vs B.G. Paramesh on 4 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:44006
MFA No. 1487 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1487 OF 2017
(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
VIJAYAKUMAR B.R.
S/O B. RUDRAPPA, NINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
STUDENT CUM AGRICULTURIST,
RESIDENT OF :
GUDDADA BEVINAHALLI - VILLAGE,
HARIHARA - TALUK,
DAVANAGERE - DIST - 577530.
Digitally
signed by
JAI JYOTHI J
Location: ...APPELLANT
HIGH
COURT OF (BY SRI. M.R. HIREMATHAD.,ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. B.G. PARAMESH,
S/O GANESHAPPA,
RESIDENT OF GUDDADA BEVINAHALLI VILLAGE,
HARIHARA - TALUK,
DAVANAGERE - DIST - 577530.
RC OWNER CUM RIDER OF MOTORCYCLE
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:44006
MFA No. 1487 of 2017
BEARING REG. NO. KA-17-EH-7354
2. THE MANAGER,
ICICI LOMBARD MOTOR CYCLE
INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO: 414, VEERASAVARKAR MARGA,
NEAR SIDDIVINAYAKA TEMPLE,
PRABHADEVI, BOMBAY - 400025.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A.N. KRISHNA SWAMY., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.08.2016 PASSED
IN MVC NO.240/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, HARIHAR,
DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal filed by the claimant aggrieved by
the dismissal of MVC.No.240/2014 dated 12.08.2016 on
the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT at
Harihar.
NC: 2023:KHC:44006
2. The claim petition is filed seeking compensation
of an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- for the injuries sustained
by the claimant in the accident. The case of the claimant
is that on 29.06.2013 at 6.10 p.m. he was proceeding on
his motor cycle, at that time, the driver of the offending
vehicle came in a rash and negligent manner came from
back side and hit against the claimant motor cycle. As a
result, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries on his
left forearm. Immediately he was shifted to Bapuji
Hospital, Davanagere and thereafter to Kasturba Hospital,
Manipal and he took treatment from 30.06.2013 to
09.07.2013. It is the case of the claimant that he has
spent huge amounts for his treatment. The court below
has observed that as per the motor vehicle inspector
report, on the claimant's vehicle there are head light mask
scratches, front wheel mud guard broken, left side rear
view mirror damaged, rear left side indicator broken.
When it comes to the offending vehicle, there are no
visible damages at the time of inspection. Basing on this
court has come to conclusion that the accident occurred
NC: 2023:KHC:44006
due to the rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle by
the claimant himself and there is no involvement of the
other vehicle.
3. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that
the court below without appreciating the evidence had
come to such a conclusion. He submits that Ex.P-4 wound
certificate discloses that it is hit by another motorcycle and
the claimant had sustained injuries. Even in the MLC
intimation it is mentioned as RTA. He submits that when
the accident had taken place on 29.06.2013, on the next
day of 30.06.2013 a complaint is lodged. The court below
failed to appreciate the medical evidence as well as the
police records and had dismissed the claim petition.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
insurance company submits that when the petition is filed
under section 166 of the MV Act, the burden lies on the
claimant to prove that the accident injuries and the
involvement of the vehicle and the negligence. It is
NC: 2023:KHC:44006
submitted that in this case, the IMV report shows that his
vehicle is not damaged and the court below had rightly
held that its fall from bike and he got injured.
5. Having heard the learned counsel on either
side, perused the entire material on record. In this case,
the accident had taken place on 29.06.2013 at 6.10 p.m.
and the report was given on 30.06.2013 about the
involvement of the vehicle. Even before this, the claimant
was admitted in the hospital and as per the wound
certificate, it shows that it is a hit by another motor cycle.
Even the MLC refers to the road traffic accident. The court
below had failed to consider these documents and more
impressed with the IMV Report. It is the case of the
claimant that when the vehicle came and hit from back
side, due to said impact, he fell down and sustained
injuries. In the light of Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4, Ex.R-2, this court
comes to the conclusion that the vehicle is involved in the
accident. Because of the rash and negligent riding by the
rider of the offending vehicle, accident had taken place.
NC: 2023:KHC:44006
The court below had dismissed the petition. As such no
discussion was done on the compensation. In that view of
the matter, the appeal is remanded back to the court
below for the specific purpose of ascertaining the
compensation which the claimant is entitled.
[
6. Accordingly, the impugned award is set aside
and the matter is remanded back to the Senior Civil
Judge & Addl. MACT, Harihar for consideration on
compensation. The parties without further notice shall
appear before the court on 15.12.2023, the court below
shall dispose off the matter within six months from
15.12.2023.
(i) It is open to both the parties to raise their
respective contentions, objections and
adduce additional evidence if any.
(ii) The Registry is directed to return the Trial
Court Record to the Tribunal along with the
certified copy of the order passed by this
court forthwith without any delay.
NC: 2023:KHC:44006
(iii) No Costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall
stand closed.
SD/-
JUDGE
TS
