Karnataka High Court
Jagadeesha vs Syed Ataulla on 5 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:43950
MFA No. 6341 of 2018
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. 6341 OF 2018 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
JAGADEESHA, S/O BASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST AND MILK BUSINESS,
R/O MAHALENAHALLY VILLAGE,
HOLALKERE TALUK - 577 526.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. R. SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SYED ATAULLA,
S/O ABDUL JABBAR, AGE MAJOR,
R/O SOCIETY ROAD,
NEAR RAMAMANDIRA, HOLALKERE TOWN,
Digitally
signed by JAI HOLALKERE - 557 526,
JYOTHI J
Location: OWNER OF AUTO BEARING
HIGH
COURT OF NO.KA-16/A-2306.
KARNATAKA
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.,
A.M.ARCADE, NEAR VIDHARTHI BHAVAN,
C.G.HOSPITAL, DAVANAGERE - 577 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C. SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20/02/2018, PASSED IN MVC
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:43950
MFA No. 6341 of 2018
NO.53/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE &
JMFC., AND MACT, HOLALKERE, 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 M.V.C.No.53/2016 dated 20.02.2018 by
the Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
at Holalkere. The claim petition was filed seeking
compensation of an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for the
injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident that took
place on 27.09.2007.
2. Earlier, the claimant had filed M.V.C.No.211/2008
and the said claim petition was dismissed on 02.09.2009
on the ground that the real owner of the vehicle was not
made as a party respondent to the claim petition.
Thereafter, the claimant had preferred MFA No.7341/2009.
An order was passed in MFA No.7341/2009 on 02.09.2009
observing that "in view of the memo filed before the
NC: 2023:KHC:43950
Court, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to
the appellant to pursue such remedies available to him
under the law". Thereafter, the present claim petition is
filed whereby the Court below has passed the impugned
order.
3. The Court below observed that in MFA
No.7341/2009, the order in M.V.C.No.211/2008 dated
02.09.2009 is not set aside and no liberty is given to the
petitioner to file a fresh claim petition and the order
passed in M.V.C.No.211/2008 is staring at the claimant
and accordingly dismissed the claim petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant
submits that he had filed a memo specifically seeking the
permission of the Court to file a fresh petition against the
original owner of the vehicle. The Court below had passed
the order without considering the order passed in the MFA.
5. This Court had perused the order passed in MFA
No.7341/2009 which is extracted in the preceding
NC: 2023:KHC:43950
paragraph which does not disclose that this Court had
given liberty to file a fresh claim petition. In that view of
the matter, the Court below had rightly dismissed the
claim petition and this Court finds no reason to interfere.
6. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
i. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court
Records to the Tribunal, along with 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
MEG
CT: BHK
