Karnataka High Court
Radha @ Radhamma vs H.R. Deepu on 25 April, 2024
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:16607
MFA No. 8745 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 8746 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8745 OF 2015(MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8746 OF 2015(MV-D)
IN MFA NO.8745 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
SMT. KAMALAMMA
W/O SHIVALINGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/O VOLAGERA SOMANAHALLI VILLAGE,
NUGGEHALLI HOBLI,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TQ.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. SHARADAMBA.A.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. H.R.DEEPU
S/O RAMACHANDRA,
MAJOR, NAGASAMUDRA ROAD,
Digitally signed by
THEJASKUMAR N CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
Location: HIGH (OWNER OF THE AUTO RICKSHAW
COURT OF
KARNATAKA BEARING NO KA.13/5036).
2. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
SRI. MANJUNATHESHWARA COMPLEX,
BUS STAND ROAD, HASSAN,
BY ITS MANAGER.
(POLICY NO.6705337),
PERIOD (14-1-2003 TO 13-1-2004).
3. SYED WAJID
S/O SYED IMAM SAB,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:16607
MFA No. 8745 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 8746 of 2015
R/O NANDIPURA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TQ.
HASSAN DISTRICT.
4. MAQBUL PASHA
S/O SYED WAJID,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/O NANDIPURA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
5. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE,
JAYADEVA HOSPITAL BUILDING,
B.H.ROAD, TIPTUR-577 201.
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(R1 AND R3-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
BY SRI. H.S.LINGARAJ., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. VASANTH.V.FERNANDES., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. R.GUNASHEKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R5;
NOTICE TO R4-DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED:16.01.2020)
IN MFA NO.8746 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
1. RADHA @ RADHAMMA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
W/O LATE SHIVARAM @ SANNEGOWDA.
2. SANTHOSH
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
S/O LATE SHIVARAM @ SANNEGOWDA.
3. NANJUNDEGOWDA
AGE 71 YEARS
S/O.SIDDEGOWDA
4. THIMMAMMA
AGE 56 YEARS
W/O NANJUNDEGOWDA
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:16607
MFA No. 8745 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 8746 of 2015
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
VALAGARA SOMANAHALLI VILLAGE
NUGGEHALLI HOBLI
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. SHARADAMBA.A.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. H.R.DEEPU
S/O RAMACHANDRA,
MAJOR, NAGASAMUDRA ROAD,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK
OWNER OF THE AUTO RICKSHAW
BEARING NO KA - 13/5036.
2. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
SRI. MANJUNATHESHWARA COMPLEX,
BUS STAND ROAD,
HASSAN,
BY ITS MANAGER POLICY NO.6705337,
PERIOD (14-1-2003 TO 13-1-2004).
3. SYED WAJID
S/O SYED IMAM SAB 71 YEARS,
R/O NANDIPURA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TQ.
HASSAN DISTRICT.
4. MAQBUL PASHA
S/O SYED WAJID 41 YEARS,
R/O NANDIPURA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TQ.
HASSAN DISTRICT.
5. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE,
JAYADEVA HOSPITAL BUILDING,
B.H.ROAD,
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:16607
MFA No. 8745 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 8746 of 2015
TIPTUR-577 201.
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(R1 AND R3-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
BY SRI. H.S.LINGARAJ., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. VASANTH.V.FERNANDES., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. R.GUNASHEKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R5;
NOTICE TO R4-DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED:16.01.2020)
THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS ARE FILED
UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE COMMON JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:12.06.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.70/2004 AND MVC
NO.75/2004 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, HASSAN.
THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS ARE COMING ON
FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
COMMON JUDGMENT
Smt.Sharadamba.A.R., learned counsel for the appellant
and Sri.H.S.Lingaraj., learned counsel for respondent No.2
have appeared in person.
2. Notice to the respondents was ordered on
15.11.2016. A perusal of the office note depicts that
respondents 1 and 3 are served and unrepresented. They have
neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the
case as party in person.
NC: 2024:KHC:16607
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:
It is contended that on the Thirteenth day of March 2003
at about 7:45 pm., Smt.Kamalamma and Shivarama @
Sannegowda were traveling in a Auto rickshaw bearing
Registration No.KA-13-5036 on Nandipura Road. It is said that
the driver of the auto rickshaw drove the same in a rash and
negligent manner and caused accident. It is also alleged that a
driver of a Tractor - Trailer bearing Registration No.KA-13-
0225-0226 took a turn without giving any signal and caused
the accident. It is contended that Smt.Kamalamma and
Shivarama @ Sannegowda sustained grievous injuries.
Immediately they were shifted to SC Hospital, Hassan and
Smt.Kamalamma took treatment as an inpatient. Shivarama @
Sannegowda succumbed to injuries. Smt.Kamalamma and the
legal representatives of deceased Shivarama @ Sannegowda
filed separate Claim Petitions seeking compensation.
In response to the notice, the respondents appeared
through their counsel and filed separate written statements
NC: 2024:KHC:16607
denying the petition averments. Among other grounds, they
prayed for dismissal of the Claim Petitions.
Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed
issues, parties led evidence and marked the documents. The
Tribunal vide Judgment dated:12.06.2015 passed a common
order and dismissed the Claim Petitions. The Claimants have
assailed the Judgment of the Tribunal in these appeals on
several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of appeals.
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 Petitions.
7. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require
reiteration. The claimants in both the cases specifically
contended that Kamalamma and Shivaram were traveling in a
auto rickshaw bearing Registration No.KA-13-5036.
Kamalamma sustained grievous injuries and Shivaram @
Sannegowda succumbed to injuries. A complaint was made by
NC: 2024:KHC:16607
one Nagaraj on 14.03.2013 at about 8:30 am. The complainant
states that he was riding a TVS Moped along with one
Manjegowda. When they reached near garden of Nanjundappa,
a Tractor - Trailer was heading their TVS Moped towards
Jogipura. He also states that a auto rickshaw was coming from
Jogipura in a rash and negligent manner. He says that looking
at the same, the driver of the Tractor - Trailer stopped the
vehicle by the side of the road and he also stopped his Moped.
He states that the driver of a auto rickshaw hit the Trailer, as a
result the auto rickshaw turtled down, the inmates of the auto
were injured. Manjegowda and himself shifted the inmates of
the auto to the hospital. It is pivotal to note that the
complainant Nagaraj has given the number of auto rickshaw as
Registration No.KA-13-6262 that caused the accident. The
officer concerned also recorded the damage to the auto
rickshaw bearing Registration No.KA-13-6262.
Suffice it to note that Kamalamma and deceased
Shivaram @ Sannegowda were the inmates of auto rickshaw
bearing Registration No.KA-13-6262 which is also clear from
the complaint and IMV report. However, the claimants falsely
implicates a auto rickshaw bearing Registration No.KA-13-
NC: 2024:KHC:16607
5036. This is incorrect. As already noted above, they were
inmates of Auto rickshaw bearing Reg. No.KA-13-6262.
Furthermore, the owner of both the auto rickshaws is one and
the same. The auto rickshaw bearing Registration No.KA-13-
6262 was not insured and auto rickshaw bearing Registration
No.KA-13-5036 was insured. Since they were traveling in a
vehicle which was not insured and hence, they implicated the
auto rickshaw which was duly insured for wrongful gain and
sought compensation. The Tribunal extenso referred to the
material on record and rightly dismissed the claim petitions. In
my view, the conclusion and 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 appeals are devoid of merits and they are liable to be
dismissed.
8. Resultantly, the Miscellaneous First Appeals are
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
TKN
