Karnataka High Court
Ramakrishna vs Susheel Kumar on 5 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:44038
MFA No. 458 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 458 OF 2017 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
RAMAKRISHNA
S/O LATE KALEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/AT NO.1844, 7TH CROSS, SUBASH NAGARA
MANDYA CITY -571 401
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRAKASHA H C.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SUSHEEL KUMAR
S/O NAGARAJU.K
MAJOR
R/AT 18TH CROSS, V.V.NAGARA
KALLAHALLI,
MANDYA -571 401
R.C.OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE NO.KA-09 EL-5015
Digitally
signed by JAI
JYOTHI J 2. MANICKAM K
Location:
HIGH MAJOR
COURT OF R/AT NO.24, 4TH MAIN, 10TH CROSS,
KARNATAKA
VUJAYANAGARA 1ST STAGE
MYSURU -570 001
POLICY HOLDER OF MOTOR CUCLE
NO.KA.09-EL-5015
3. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
M.H.BORAIAH BUILDING
V.V.ROAD,
MANDYA TALUK -571 401
(POLICY ISSUING OFFICE NO.1
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:44038
MFA No. 458 of 2017
THEJAS COMPLEX, CSI
SAYYAJIRAO ROAD
MYSURU :570 001
.
4. THE BRANCH MANAGER
M/S. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
MANDYA BRANCH,
NO.1200, 2ND CROSS,
ASHOK NAGARA,
MANDYA-571 401.
...RESPONDENTS
(APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED V.O.D 20.4.2023; NOTICE TO R-
2 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED; BY SRI.SHASHISHEKHAR S.,
ADVOCATE FOR R-3; SRI ANOOP SEETHARAMA RAO.,
ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.05.2016 PASSED IN MVC
NO.390/2010 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND CJM, MANDYA, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal filed by the claimant aggrieved by
the dismissal of MVC.No.390/2010 dated 31.05.2016 on
the file of the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Mandya.
2. The claim petition is filed under section 166 of the
MV Act seeking compensation of an amount of
Rs.1,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in
NC: 2023:KHC:44038
the accident. The case of the claimant is that on
03.05.2009 he was proceeding on his Bajaj Chetak
Scooter, at about 9.35 p.m. a motor cycle driven by its
driver in a rash and negligent manner came from opposite
direction hit the scooter causing the accident. On account
of the accident, the claimant had sustained the injuries on
the right thigh, left knee and face. The Tribunal had
dismissed the claim petition observing that initially a
complaint was lodged by the claimant. After a full fledged
investigation, they filed the report before the court,
wherein the claimant was arrayed as an accused. The
court below had observed that the accident had taken
place on account of his own fault and he cannot claim
damages for his own wrong. Further even as per the IMV
report, scooter of the claimant was damaged. The front
mud guard, shock absorber, bumper was pressed inside
and damaged. Front wheel disk and chassis were also
found damaged. The court below observed that the spot
where the accident is said to have taken place would on
the face of it indicate the rashness on the part of the
NC: 2023:KHC:44038
claimant. Considering all these aspects, the court below
has held that the claimant himself was at fault, and
because of his negligence accident had taken place and
dismissed the claim petition.
3. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that
the court below without appreciating the evidence on
record, had dismissed the claim petition. It is submitted
in the charge sheet, the rider of the offending vehicle was
also shown as accused. He submits that the claim petition
is filed by the rider of the opposite vehicle and
compensation was awarded to him. It is submitted that
the court below ought to have considered the application
on the merits of the matter and ought to have granted the
compensation.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
respondent-insurance company submits that the court
below had rightly dismissed the claim petition as the
accident had taken place because of the negligent on the
NC: 2023:KHC:44038
part of the claimant who has come from extreme left side
to the extreme right side of the road by taking deviation
and the claimant being at fault cannot claim
compensation. It is submitted that no grounds are made
seeking interference with the order passed by the
Tribunal.
5. Having heard the learned counsel on either
side, perused the entire material on record. In this case,
initially the complaint was given by the claimant stating
that the driver of the offending vehicle was responsible for
the accident. After conducting a full fledged investigation,
the claimant is arrayed as accused. As per the
investigation, he had gone to the extreme right side and
he contributed to the accident. That itself shows that the
claimant himself is responsible for the accident. Then
coming to the charge sheet, the other accused, driver of
the offending vehicle was also arrayed as an accused
neither from the charge sheet-Ex.P-4, this court can
understand the submission of the counsel for the
NC: 2023:KHC:44038
appellant, nor the claim petition or the award passed by
the Tribunal in respect of the driver of the other vehicle is
not placed before this court. In that view of the matter,
this court finds no reasons to interfere with the award
passed by the Tribunal.
6. Accordingly, the appeal of the claimant is
Dismissed.
(i) 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.
(ii) No Costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
SD/-
JUDGE
TS
