Karnataka High Court
Karnataka Government vs Sri. B M Muniraju on 12 June, 2023
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:20069
MFA No. 7945 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7945 OF 2012 (MV)
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT,
INSURANCE DEPARTMENT,
MOTOR BRANCH, TRANSPORT
COMMISSIONER, 5TH FLOOR,
M S BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SHIVANAND D.C. ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI B M MUNIRAJU,
S/O LATE MUNIHANUMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.218,
4TH CROSS, AMBEDKAR ROAD,
Digitally signed
B.B. ROAD, BYATARAYANAPURA,
by PAVITHRA B BENGALURU-560 092.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. SMT. SHAKEELA BANU,
W/O ARSHAD PASHA,
NO.56, 2ND CROSS,
VINAYAKANAGAR,
OLD GUDDADAHALLI,
MYSORE ROAD
BENGALURU-560 026.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JWALA KUMAR FOR, ADVOCATE FOR R1
R2 - APPEAL DISMISSED AGAINST R2 V/O DATED:
17.06.2015)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:20069
MFA No. 7945 of 2012
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988 PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.05.2012
PASSED IN MVC NO. 5488/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDL.
SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, AWARDING
A COMPENSATION OF RS. 9,42,200/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A
FOR RS. 9,17,200/- FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'MV Act' for
brevity) by the appellant-Karnataka Government
Insurance Department (for short 'the KGID'), calling in
question the judgment and award dated 05.05.2012,
passed in M.V.C.No.5488/2010, on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, at Bangalore, (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Tribunal' for brevity) seeking to set
aside the impugned judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal and exonerate the petitioner from the liability to
pay compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
NC: 2023:KHC:20069
MFA No. 7945 of 2012
Brief facts:
2. On 01.07.2010 at about 8.45 p.m., the claimant
Sri B.M. Muniraju/petitioner was standing on
Byatarayanapura Service Road, B.B. Road, Opposite to
Basavalingappa Bhavan to cross the road, at that time,
one Ambassador Car bearing Reg.No.KA 04 MG 6726 came
in high speed, in rash and negligent manner and dashed
against the petitioner due to which he was forcibly
knocked down and sustained multiple fractures and other
serious injuries.
3. Hence, a claim petition was filed by the injured under
Section 166 of the M.V. Act, claiming compensation. The
Tribunal on appreciating the materials on record, allowed
the claim petition in part, and awarded a compensation of
Rs.9,42,200/-, along with interest at 6% per annum from
the date of petition till the date of deposit. The Tribunal
held the respondents jointly and severally liable to pay the
compensation. Primarily the appellant/KGID herein is
NC: 2023:KHC:20069
MFA No. 7945 of 2012
directed to pay compensation amount with interest within
30 days from the date of award.
4. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the
appellant-Insurance Department and the learned counsel
for respondent-claimant and perused the materials on
record.
5. The learned High Court Additional Government
Advocate for the appellant submitted that much prior to
the date of accident the offending Vehicle Ambassador Car
bearing Reg.No.KA 04 MG 6726 was sold in Public Auction
to one K. Chandrababu on 10.11.2009. Subsequently the
said K. Chandrababu sold the said vehicle on 17.02.2010
to the 2nd respondent-Smt. Shakeela Banu. But the
accident was caused on 01.07.2010, hence as on the date
of accident the appellant KGID was not the owner, but the
vehicle was sold/transferred to the 2nd respondent.
Hence the appellant KGID is not liable to pay the
compensation.
NC: 2023:KHC:20069
MFA No. 7945 of 2012
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondentS claimant justifies the impugned judgment
and award passed by the Tribunal.
7. In the written statement filed before the Tribunal,
the appellant has taken the contention that Ambassador
Car in question was sold as above stated. But the Tribunal
has not framed any specific issue regarding proving of
ownership of the vehicle. Also the appellant/KGID has not
produced any evidence to prove that the offending vehicle
in question viz., Ambassador Car was sold to the 2nd
respondent herein as discussed above. But it is the
assertion of the appellant/KGID that the vehicle in
question was sold and that appellant is not either owner or
insurer of the offending vehicle. Therefore, when this
being the specific averment made out in the written
statement by the appellant-KGID, then the tribunal ought
to have framed issue proving the ownership of the
offending vehicle. Therefore, the matter is required to be
remanded to the Tribunal for determining as to who is the
NC: 2023:KHC:20069
MFA No. 7945 of 2012
owner of the Ambassador Car as on the date of accident
and also on the quantum of compensation determined.
8. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the case, the appeal is remanded to the Tribunal
for fresh consideration. All the contentions are left open.
Both the parties are at liberty to produce the further
documents, if they are so advised. Hence the following :-
ORDER
(i) Accordingly the appeal is allowed;
(ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 05.05.2012
passed in MVC No.5488/2010 is set aside;
(iii) The amount in deposit be refunded to the appellant-
KGID and
(iv) Both the parties shall appear before the Tribunal on
20.07.2023, thereafter, it is directed that the Tribunal
shall dispose of the petition within four month.
Sd/-
JUDGE
