Karnataka High Court
Mr. Debapriyo Bhattacharjee vs Mrs. Rani on 19 April, 2024
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:15644
MFA No. 4974 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4974 OF 2015(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
MR. DEBAPRIYO BHATTACHARJEE
SON OF MR. D.N.BHATTACHARJEE,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.295/3,
FLAT NO.301, MYTRI RESIDENCY,
5TH CROSS, MARUTHINAGAR,
MALLESHPALYA,
BANGALORE-560 075.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SAMARTH PRAKASH., ADVOCATE)
AND:
MRS. RANI
WIFE OF LATE VEERABHADRA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
Digitally signed by RESIDING AT NO.7,
THEJASKUMAR N VENKATESHWARA TEMPLE ROAD,
Location: HIGH MANGAMMANAPALYA,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA BOMMANAHALLI,
BANGALORE-560 068.
...RESPONDENT
(NOTICE TO R1-HELD SUFFIICIENT V/O DATED:13.08.2021)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:06.04.2015
PASSED IN MVC NO.2014/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:15644
MFA No. 4974 of 2015
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND XXXIII ACMM, MEMBER
MACT, BANGALORE.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Sri.Samarth Prakash., learned counsel for the appellant
has appeared in person.
2. Notice to the respondent was ordered on
24.07.2015. A perusal of the daily order sheet depicts that vide
order dated:13.08.2021 notice to the respondent is held
sufficient. She has neither engaged the services of an advocate
nor conducted the case as party in person.
3. Though the appeal is listed today for admission, it is
heard finally.
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their status and rankings before the Tribunal.
5. The brief facts are these:
It is contended that on the Eighteenth day of March 2014
at about 11:00 am., the claimant being a pedestrian was
NC: 2024:KHC:15644
crossing a expressway on Hosur Main Road. At that time, a
rider of motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-03-EY-6395
came in a rash and negligent manner and struck her. Due to
the impact, she sustained grievous injuries and was shifted to
Prashanth Hospital, Hosur Main Road and underwent surgery.
Contending that she is entitled for compensation, the claimant
filed a claim petition.
In response to the notice, the respondent appeared
through his counsel and filed written statement denying the
petition averments. Among other grounds he prayed for
dismissal of the Claim Petition.
Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed
issues, parties led evidence and marked the documents. The
Tribunal vide Judgment dated:06.04.2015 allowed the Claim
Petition in part and awarded compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-
with 8% interest per annum from the date of petition till
realization. The owner of a motorcycle has assailed the
Judgment of the Tribunal in this appeal on several grounds as
set-out in the Memorandum of appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC:15644
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged several
contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the
appellant 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 allowing the Claim Petition.
8. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require
reiteration. The issue revolves around a pedestrian walking/
crossing on the expressway.
It's a commonsense that Pedestrians, three wheelers,
motorcycles, bicycles, bullock carts are not allowed in the
expressway. But as any other expressway, it is a hard shoulder
or an extra lane where one may park its vehicle and walk a
distance. But walking/ crossing on the expressway is prohibited
and may incur fine if someone tries to do so. For their safety,
pedestrians are not allowed on expressways and in tunnels.
Personal Mobility Devices (PMD's) are not allowed on all roads
and therefore, cannot travel on expressways and in tunnels.
With this background, let me examine what facts I have
here. In the present case, the claimant was a pedestrian and
NC: 2024:KHC:15644
was crossing a expressway on the Eighteenth day of March
2014. She alleges that the rider of a motorcycle came in a rash
and negligent manner and hit her. Ex.P.2 is the Mahazar with
Sketch. A perusal of the same would clearly depict that the
claimant was crossing the expressway which she is not
supposed do so. Furthermore, barricades were put up by the
traffic control specifically to avoid pedestrians crossing the
expressway. I may venture to say that the Claimant was
recklessly and carelessly jay walking on the expressway
without basic traffic sense. Hence, the Claim Petition is liable to
be rejected. Accordingly, it is rejected.
For the reasons stated above, the Judgment
dated:06.04.2015 passed by the Court of VIII Addl. Small
Causes Judge and MACT, (SCCH-5) at Bengaluru in
M.V.C.No.2014/2014 is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, it is
set-aside. The Claim Petition is rejected.
9. Resultantly, the Miscellaneous First Appeal is
allowed.
NC: 2024:KHC:15644
The Registry concerned is directed to refund the amount
in deposit if any to the owner of the motorcycle after due
identification.
Sd/-
JUDGE
TKN
