Karnataka High Court
Sri V Vikram vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd on 27 September, 2023
Bench: H T Prasad
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:35311
MFA No. 1310 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1310 OF 2018 (MV)
BETWEEN:
SRI V VIKRAM
S/O VENKATESH S K
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
PREVIOUSLY R/AT NO.44/1
3RD STREET, OPPOSITE MURUGAN TEMPLE
HALEBYAPPANAHALLI
MARUTHI SEVA NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 033.
PRESENTLY R/AT
NO. 60, BEHIND MARIYAMMA TEMPLE
SWATHANTRA NAGAR
VIRONAGAR POST
BENGALURU - 560 049. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. GURUDEVA PRASAD K T., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed AND:
by
DHANALAKSHMI
MURTHY 1. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Location: High DO-2, KHENY BUILDING
Court of NO.3, 1ST FLOOR, 1ST CROSS
Karnataka
GANDHINAGAR, P.B.NO. 95555
BENGALURU - 560 009
BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.
2. SRI LAKSHMAN R
S/O RANGAPPA
NO.229, 2ND CROSS
5TH MAIN, SUDDAGUNTE PALYA
C.V.RAMAN NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 093. ...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:35311
MFA No. 1310 of 2018
(BY SRI. R. GUNASHEKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1:
NOTICE TO R2 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:17.01.2018 PASSED IN
MVC NO.6694/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL
JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU (SCCH-16), DISMISSING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been
filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment and
decree dated 17.01.2018 passed by the Small Causes and
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-16)
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in MVC
No.6694/2016.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 15.08.2016 at about 2.30 p.m.
the claimant was riding the motorcycle bearing registration
No.KA-53/EL-7509 on Basavanapura main road. When he
reached near SBI road, at that time, a car bearing
NC: 2023:KHC:35311
MFA No. 1310 of 2018
registration No.KA-53/C-1022 driven by its driver at a high
speed and in a rash and negligent manner, came from the
opposite direction and dashed to the motorcycle. Due to
the said impact, claimant fell down and suffered injuries.
3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166
of the Act seeking compensation. It was pleaded that he
spent huge amount towards medical expenses,
conveyance, etc. It was further pleaded that the accident
occurred purely on account of the rash and negligent
riding of the offending vehicle by its rider.
4. On service of notice, the respondent No.1
appeared through counsel and filed written statement in
which the averments made in the petition were denied.
The age, avocation and income of the claimant and the
medical expenses are denied. It was pleaded that the
petition itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. It
was further pleaded that the liability is subject to terms
and conditions of the policy. It was further pleaded that
the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimant is
NC: 2023:KHC:35311
MFA No. 1310 of 2018
exorbitant. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.
The respondent No.2 did not appear before the Tribunal
and hence he was placed ex-parte.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the
Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded
the evidence. The claimant himself was examined as PW1,
and Dr.Vijay M. was examined as PW-2 and got exhibited
documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P18. On behalf of the
respondents, neither any witness was examined nor got
exhibited documents. The Claims Tribunal, by the
impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the claimant has
failed to prove the actionable negligence on the part of the
driver of the car and hence, dismissed the claim petition.
Being aggrieved, claimant filed this appeal.
6. The learned counsel for the claimant has raised
the following contentions:
(i) Firstly, the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the car alone.
Immediately after the accident a complaint has been
NC: 2023:KHC:35311
MFA No. 1310 of 2018
lodged against the driver of the car. The police, after
thorough investigation have filed charge sheet against the
driver of the car. Even as per the mahazar and sketch, it is
very clear that the driver of the car alone is negligent in
causing the accident. The Tribunal, considering the
evidence of the parties and documents produced by the
claimant has rightly held that the driver of the car alone is
negligent in causing the accident. But, while passing the
order, only on the basis of the stray sentence in the cross-
examination of PW1, dismissed the claim petition. The
judgment and decree of the trial court is contrary to the
materials available on record.
(ii) Secondly, to disprove the case of the claimant
the respondents have neither examined any witnesses nor
produced any documents. Hence, he sought for allowing
the appeal.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing
for the Insurance Company has contended that the
accident occurred due to the negligence of the claimant
NC: 2023:KHC:35311
MFA No. 1310 of 2018
alone. He has admitted in his cross-examination that the
accident is a head-on collision. Considering the evidence
of PW1 and considering the IMV report and mahazar, the
Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim petition. Hence, he
sought for dismissal of the appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Perused the judgment and award and the original records.
9. It is the case of the claimant that on
15.08.2016 at about 2.30 p.m. the claimant was riding the
motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-53/EL-7509 on
Basavanapura main road. When he reached near SBI
road, at that time, a car bearing registration No.KA-53/C-
1022 driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and
negligent manner, came from the opposite direction and
dashed to the motorcycle. Due to the said impact,
claimant fell down and suffered injuries. After recovering
from the injuries he filed the claim petition.
10. To prove his case, he has examined himself as
PW1 and examined the doctor as PW2 and produced 18
NC: 2023:KHC:35311
MFA No. 1310 of 2018
documents. The respondents neither examined any
witnesses nor produced the documents. The Tribunal,
after considering the documents produced by the parties
has given a finding that the accident occurred due to the
negligence of the driver of the car, but on the stray
admission of PW1 in his cross-examination, the Tribunal
dismissed the claim petition. There is inconsistency in the
finding given by the Tribunal. Therefore, the matter
requires to be reconsidered by the Tribunal afresh.
11. In view of the above, I pass the following order:
(i) The appeal is allowed.
(ii) The judgment and decree passed by the
Tribunal in MVC No.6694/2016 dated
17.01.2018 is set aside.
(iii) The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal
with liberty to the parties to adduce
additional evidence and to produce additional
documents.
NC: 2023:KHC:35311
MFA No. 1310 of 2018
(iv) The Tribunal is directed to reconsider the
matter afresh, in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CM
