Karnataka High Court
Sri C K Bhaskar Hegde vs Sri Kalamariyappa on 16 April, 2024
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:15088
MFA No. 7476 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7476 OF 2013(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. C.K.BHASKAR HEGDE
S/O SRI. KALAMARIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
R/AT HOSURADODDI,
KYLANCHA HOBLI,
RAMANAGARA TALUK & DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. INDUMATHI.S.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. KALAMARIYAPPA
S/O LATE BEERAIAH,
R/AT HOSURADODDI,
KYLANCHA HOBLI,
RAMANAGARA TALUK & DISTRICT-571 511.
Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA M R 2. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL
Location: HIGH
COURT OF INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
KARNATAKA
S.V.R. COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR,
NO.89, HOSUR ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 068.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. DEVAMANI.V., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. B.PRADEEP., 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:15.09.2012
PASSED IN MVC NO.443/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:15088
MFA No. 7476 of 2013
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, ADDITIONAL MACT,
RAMANAGARA.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR
DISMISSAL, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Smt.Indumathi.S.R., learned counsel for the appellant
and Sri.B.Pradeepl., learned counsel for respondent No.2 have
appeared in person.
There is no representation on behalf of respondent No.1,
either personally or through video conferencing.
2. Though the appeal is listed today for dismissal, it is
heard finally.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their status and rankings before the Tribunal.
4. It is the case of the claimant that on the fourth day
of July 2008 at about 8:30 a.m., he was doing agricultural
activities in his land. At that time, one Basavaraju the driver of
of a Tractor bearing Reg.No.KA-42-T-802 drove the same in a
rash and negligent manner and hit him. As a result of which, he
NC: 2024:KHC:15088
sustained injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to NIMHANS
Hospital, Bangalore, thereafter he was shifted to Gurushri
Hospital, Bangalore. It is contended that he was in ICU for two
months. Contending that he is entitled for compensation, the
claimant filed a claim petition.
In response to the notice, respondents 1 and 2 appeared
through their counsel. The first respondent did not file written
statement. The second respondent filed written statement
denying the petition averments. Among other grounds, it
prayed for dismissal of the petition.
Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed
issues, parties led evidence and marked the documents. The
Tribunal vide Judgment dated:15.09.2012 dismissed the Claim
Petition. It is this Judgment that is called into question in this
appeal on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of
appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the respective parties have
urged several contentions.
Smt.Indumathi.S.R., learned counsel for the appellant in
presenting her arguments strenuously urged that the claimant
NC: 2024:KHC:15088
was unconscious for four days. Hence, he was unable to make
a complaint well in time. She argued by saying that the
Tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim petition on the
ground that the claimant has failed to prove the negligence of
the offending vehicle.
By way of reply to this contention, counsel
Sri.B.Pradeep., submits that there is a delay of 17 days in
making a complaint. He argued by saying that there is a
contradictory version about the manner in which the accident
alleged to have occurred. Counsel submits the Tribunal is
justified in dismissing the claim petition. He therefore, submits
that the appeal is devoid of merits and the same may be
dismissed.
6. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the
respective parties and perused the appeal papers and also the
records with utmost care.
7. The point that requires consideration is whether the
Tribunal is justified in dismissing the Claim Petition.
8. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require
reiteration. According to the claimant, the accident occurred on
NC: 2024:KHC:15088
04.07.2008. However, the brother of the claimant made a
complaint only on 21.07.2008. There is a delay in making a
complaint. Ex.P.2 is the complaint. A perusal of the same would
reveal that the claimant's brother made a complaint. He states
that his brother was doing agricultural work in the land, at that
time a driver of a tractor came in a rash and negligent manner
and hit his brother and caused the accident.
It is the specific contention of the claimant that he was
cropping in his land and due to the negligence of the driver, he
sustained injuries. Except for saying that the claimant was hit
by a Tractor, there is nothing on record to show the presence of
Tractor in the land on the that day.
Ex.D1 is the MLC report issued by NIMHANS, Bangalore.
In the MLC report, it is noted as under:
"Alleged H/o. RTA tractor toppled at 8:30
a.m., near Hosurdoddi, Ramanagar."
Assuming for a while that there was a Tractor in the land
and due to the negligence of the driver, the claimant sustained
injuries, it does not amounts to a Road Traffic Accident. Hence,
the claimant cannot invoke the provisions of the Motor Vehicles
NC: 2024:KHC:15088
Act to claim compensation. Furthermore, according to the
claimant the accident occurred on 04.07.2008. However, a
complaint is made on 21.07.2008. There is a delay of 17 days
in making a complaint. The narration of the accident and the
delay in making a complaint raises a doubt about the
genuineness of the claim. The Tribunal extenso referred to the
material on record and rightly rejected the claim petition. In my
view, the conclusion so arrived at by the Tribunal is just and
proper. 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 dismissed.
9. Resultantly, the Miscellaneous First Appeal is
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MRP
