Karnataka High Court
Smt Marigangamma vs Venkatesh D on 5 April, 2024
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:14155
MFA No. 2848 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2848 OF 2015(MV-D)
BETWEEN:
SMT. MARIGANGAMMA
W/O LATE GANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT PANDITHANAHALLI VILLAGE-572 101.
URDIGERE HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. HARISH., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. PATEL.D.KAREGOWDA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. VENKATESH.D
S/O DHARMALINGAM,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT NO.70/1, AROGYAPPA
LAYOUT, 5TH MAIN,
MARIYA KRUPA NILAYA,
Digitally signed by KAMMANAHALLI,
THEJASKUMAR N
Location: HIGH
BENGALURU-560 084.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
OFFICE AT:-
KISHORE TRANSPORT SERVICE PVT. LTD.,
NO.60/2, B.D.A. 60 FEET ROAD,
KAMMANAHALLI LAYOUT, SAINT,
THOMAS TOWN POST,
BENGALURU-560 084.
2. THE MANAGER,
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
PRAJAPRAGATHI COMPLEX,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:14155
MFA No. 2848 of 2015
NEAR SIDDAGANGA HIGH SCHOOL,
B.H.ROAD, TUMKUR TOWN-572 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO R1-DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED:12.02.2020;
BY SRI. PRADEEP.B., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:23.12.2014
PASSED IN MVC NO.1371/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT-X, TUMKUR.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR
DISMISSAL, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Sri.Harish., learned counsel on behalf of Sri.Patel D.Kare
Gowda., for the appellant and Sri.Pradeep., learned counsel for
respondent No.2 have appeared in person.
2. Though the appeal is listed today for dismissal, it is
heard finally,
3. The claimant has assailed the order passed by the
Tribunal regarding the maintainability of the claim petition in
this appeal on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum
of appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the respective parties have
urged several contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on
NC: 2024:KHC:14155
behalf of the respective parties and perused the appeal papers
and also the records with utmost care.
5. The point that requires consideration is whether the
Judgment of the Tribunal requires interference.
6. Suffice it to note that one Smt.Marigangamma.,
filed a claim petition before the Tribunal contending that she is
the wife of deceased Gangaiah, who died in the RTA that
occurred on the eleventh day of November 2009 on NH-4 road
when a container Lorry bearing Reg. No.MH-18-M-7331 which
hit against Gangaiah and he succumbed to injuries on the very
same day.
It is relevant to note that the Insurance Company upon
service of notice filed written statement and also filed a memo
contending that one Umesh and another filed a claim petition in
M.V.C.No.1581/2009 in connection with same accident
dated:11.11.2009 before the same Tribunal and they
compromised the matter and the claim was settled for a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- and the Insurance Company satisfied the award.
An attempt is made on behalf of the appellant to contend
that she was not aware of the memo so also the earlier disposal
NC: 2024:KHC:14155
of the claim petition. The said contention cannot be accepted.
The reason is simple. The Tribunal heard on memo. Hence, the
contention that she was not aware of the memo must
necessarily fail. Furthermore, it is not the case of the claimant
that the compromise that was entered in M.V.C.No.1581/2009
is without her knowledge. If a claim is already made in respect
of the very same accident, the second petition would amount to
double petition. The Tribunal extenso referred to the material
on record and rightly rejected the claim petition as not
maintainable. I find no reasons to interfere with the Judgment
of the Tribunal.
For the reasons stated above, the appeal is devoid of
merits and it is liable to be rejected.
7. Resultantly, the Miscellaneous First Appeal is
rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MRP
