Karnataka High Court
Ajith Kumar vs K Jayaprasad Jain on 19 April, 2024
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:15649
MFA No. 4977 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.4977 OF 2015(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
AJITH KUMAR
S/O SIDDAPPA POOVANI,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
RES/AT KATIKHAN PUVANI,
MARASINGE VILLAGE AND POST,
KALASA HOBALI,
MUDIGERE TALUK-577 132.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ASHISH RAM., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. KRISHNAMOORTHY.D., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. K.JAYAPRASAD JAIN
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
S/O KRISHNARAJ SHETTY,
Digitally signed by R/AT HOSAMANE, KOLADPETE,
THEJASKUMAR N KASHIPATNA POST,
Location: HIGH BELTHANGADY TALUK,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA D.K. DISTRICT-574 236.
2. ICICI LOMBARD MOTOR INSURANCE
OFFICE AT ALLUKAS JEWELLARY,
LIGHT HOUSE MILL ROAD,
MANGALORE DISTRICT-575 001.
REP/BY ITS MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO R1-DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED:19.06.2016;
BY SRI. B.PRADEEP., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:15649
MFA No. 4977 of 2015
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:07.10.2014
PASSED IN MVC NO.1247/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE I
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MACT-II, D.K.,
MANGALORE.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Sri.Ashish Ram., learned counsel on behalf of
Sri.Krishnamoorthy.D., for the appellant and Sri.B.Pradeep.,
learned counsel for respondent No.2 have appeared in person.
2. Though the appeal is listed today for admission, 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. The brief facts are these:
On 12.04.2011 at about 8:30 am., the claimant was
proceeding along with his son-in-law on a motorcycle bearing
Registration No.KA-21/K-8561 as a Pillion rider from Katikhan
NC: 2024:KHC:15649
estate towards Kalasa side. When they reached near Katikhan
estate road bridge, Marasanige Village, Mudigere a jeep came
from opposite direction. At that time, to avoid the said jeep,
the rider of the motorcycle all of a sudden rode the same in a
negligent manner and fell into a roadside ditch. The claimant
sustained grievous injuries and was shifted to Kalasa Hospital
and then to Spandana Hospital, Karkala and took treatment as
an inpatient. Contending that he is entitled for compensation,
the claimant filed a claim petition before the MACT, Mangalore,
Dakshina Kannada.
In response to the notice, the first respondent remained
absent before the Tribunal and hence, he was placed ex-parte.
The second respondent Insurance Company appeared through
its counsel and filed statement of objections denying the
petition averments. Among other grounds, it 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:07.10.2014 dismissed the Claim
Petition. The claimant has assailed the Judgment of the
NC: 2024:KHC:15649
Tribunal 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. Heard, the contentions urged on
behalf of the respective parties and perused the appeal papers
with utmost care.
6. The point that requires consideration is whether the
Tribunal is justified in dismissing the Claim Petition.
7. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require
reiteration. According to the claimant, the accident occurred on
12.04.2011 near Katikhan estate road bridge, Marasanige
Village, Mudigere. However, a complaint is made on
18.04.2011. There is a delay of six days in making a complaint.
Furthermore, the accident occurred within the jurisdiction of
Mudigere, strangely the claimant filed a Claim Petition before
the MACT, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada. The delay in making
a complaint and filing a claim petition before the MACT,
Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada raises a doubt regarding
genuineness of the claim. The Tribunal extenso referred to the
material on record and rightly dismissed the Claim Petition. In
NC: 2024:KHC:15649
my opinion, the conclusion and the finding 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 rejected.
8. Resultantly, the Miscellaneous First Appeal is
rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
TKN
