Karnataka High Court
Lokesha vs The Proprietor on 1 April, 2024
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:13140
MFA No. 7757 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7757 OF 2013(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
LOKESHA
S/O MALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT DOOR NO.592,
BEHIND GANAPATHI TEMPLE,
GIRIDARSHINI LAYOUT,
ALANAHALLI, MYSORE-570 018.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. GIREESHA.S.N., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. MANJUNATH.N.D., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE PROPRIETOR,
M/S. SRI. LAKSHMANA TRADERS,
R/AT NO.49, INDUSTRIAL SUBURBAN,
M.E.C.ROAD, YASHWANTHPURA,
Digitally signed by
THEJASKUMAR N BANGALORE-22.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. MANAGER,
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
NEAR FIRE BRIGADE, SARASWATHIPURAM,
MYSORE-570 008.
3. MAHESH
S/O RAMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT MAKANAHALLI,
BANNUR HOBLI,
T.NARASIPURA TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT-570 128.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:13140
MFA No. 7757 of 2013
4. ICICI LOMBARD INSURANCE COMPANY,
OPP. TO SUBURAN BUS STAND,
B.N.ROAD, MYSORE-570 001.
BY ITS MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJARAM.S., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. B.C.SEETHARAMA RAO., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. K.L.SREENIVAS., ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI. B.PRADEEP., ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:30.06.2012
PASSED IN MVC NO.990/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING
OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-III AND MACT, MYSORE.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR
FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Sri.Gireesha.S.N., learned counsel on behalf of
Sri.Manjunath.N.D., for the appellant, Sri.Somesh., learned
counsel on behalf of Sri.Rajaram.S., for respondent No.1 and
Sri.B.Pradeep., learned counsel for respondent No.4 have
appeared in person.
Sri.B.C.Seetharama Rao., learned counsel for respondent
No.2 has appeared through video conferencing.
NC: 2024:KHC:13140
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be
referred to as per their status and ranking before the Tribunal.
3. It is the case of the claimant that on the 15th day of
November 2010, the third respondent was riding the
motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-09-EL-4638 and he was a
pillion rider. It is said that they were proceeding towards
Bidadi, Mysore to Bangalore road, near Channapatna at
Mudigere gate. At that time, a Canter bearing Reg. No.KA-04-
A-4834 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit them. As
a result of which, the claimant fell and sustained injuries.
Contending that he is entitled for compensation, the clamant
filed claim petition.
After the issuance of the notice, the respondents have
appeared through their counsel. Respondents 1, 2 and 4 have
filed separate written statement and denied the averments
made in the claim petition. Among other grounds they prayed
for the dismissal of the claim petition.
Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the
issues and parties led evidence and marked the documents.
The Tribunal vide Judgment dated:30.06.2012 allowed the
NC: 2024:KHC:13140
claim petition in part. It is this Judgment that is called into
question 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
behalf of the respective parties and perused the appeal papers
and the records with utmost care.
5. The point that requires consideration is whether the
Judgment of the Tribunal requires interference.
6. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require
reiteration. It is the specific case of the claimant that the canter
came from the opposite direction and hit them. If that be so,
there would have been a collision of two vehicles. But, there is
no collision of two vehicles. The Tribunal extenso referred to
the material on record and concluded that the claimant has
failed to prove that Canter came from the opposite direction
and hit them and awarded global compensation of Rs.25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) together with interest at
the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till its
realization. In my view, the compensation awarded by the
NC: 2024:KHC:13140
Tribunal is just and fair compensation. 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
