Karnataka High Court
Chethan vs Ansara on 27 November, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:42814
MFA No. 9518 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9518 OF 2017(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
CHETHAN,
S/O ISHWARA NAIKA,
NOW AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
R/O SANNAMPADY HOUSE,
GOLITHOTTU, NELLYADY,
PUTUR TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 574 201.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VISHWANATHA POOJARY K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ANSARA,
S/O ABDULRAHUMAN KUNJU,
Digitally
signed by NOW AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
JAI JYOTHI J
R/O PRUMKUZHIYIL HOUSE,
Location:
HIGH MUKUNDAPURAM POST,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA CHAVARA, KOLLAM,
KERALA STATE - 691 001.
2. THE MANAGER,
RELIANCE GENERAL
INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
1ST FLOOR, VARIAM TOWERS,
DIVISION XLI BUILDING NO.108,
KOLLAM CORPORATION,
RESIDENCY ROAD,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:42814
MFA No. 9518 of 2017
KOLLAM,
KERALA STATE - 691 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.C. BETSUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:24.01.2017 PASSED IN MVC
NO.959/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT &
SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU, SITTING AT PUTTUR,
D.K, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
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 M.V.C.No.959/2015 dated 24.01.2017 by
the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K.,
Mangaluru, sitting at Puttur, D.K. The claim petition was
filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.6,00,000/-
for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident.
2. It is the case of the claimant that on 24.01.2015
at about 6:15 p.m., the claimant was travelling as a pillion
rider on a motor cycle and at about 8:30 a.m., a Tipper
NC: 2023:KHC:42814
Lorry came from opposite side in rash and negligent
manner with high speed and dashed against the motor
cycle.
3. The Court below had dismissed the claim petition
on two grounds. One is that, the vehicle was not having a
permit to ply in Karnataka State and there was violation of
terms and conditions of the policy. The Insurance
Company is not liable to pay the compensation. Then, the
second aspect is that, when the claimant had made the
previous owner of the vehicle as a party respondent to the
claim petition, it has been stated that the car was sold on
14.01.2015, that is much prior to the accident as the
accident had taken place on 24.01.2015. The Court below
had observed that the claim petition was filed without
making proper and necessary parties to the petition and
dismissed the claim petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/claimant submits that the Court below ought to
NC: 2023:KHC:42814
have applied the principle of pay and recover and ought to
have held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay and
recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.
5. Unfortunately, in this case, the claimant has not
made the present owner of the offending vehicle as the
party respondent to the petition as on the date of the
accident. Even when the counter affidavit is filed by the
respondents stating that the vehicle was sold on
14.01.2015 and the accident had taken place on
24.01.2015, he had not taken any steps either before the
Court below or before this Court which shows that in spite
of knowing the same, the petitioner has not taken any
steps. Hence, this Court finds no reason to interfere.
6. Accordingly, the appeal of the claimant is
dismissed.
i. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court
Records to the Tribunal, along with certified
NC: 2023:KHC:42814
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:SNN
