Karnataka High Court
Sri Thammanna @ vs Sri Ravi on 1 April, 2024
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:13143
MFA No. 8909 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.8909 OF 2013
(MV-DM)
BETWEEN:
SRI. THAMMANNA @
THAMMANNAGOWDA.B.E.,
S/O EREGOWDA.H.U.,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT NO.406, 'G' BLOCK,
RAMAKRISHNANAGARA,
MYSORE.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. H.V.BHANU PRAKASH., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. RAVI
S/O BOSEGOWDA @ BOJEGOWDA,
AGED MAJOR,
R/AT NO.11, 2ND CROSS,
Digitally signed by RAJESHWARI NILAYA,
THEJASKUMAR N
Location: HIGH
NEAR SHANI MAHATHAMA TEMPLE,
COURT OF K.R.PURAM, BANGALORE-560 036.
KARNATAKA (DRIVER CUM OWNER OF THE LORRY
BEARING NO. KA-01-C-2367).
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
MUSLIM HOSTEL COMPLEX BUILDING,
SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSORE-570 009.
(INSURER OF THE LORRY
BEARING NO. KA-01-C-2367).
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.V.HEGDE MULKHAND., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1-APPEAL AGAINST DISMISSED V/O DATED:18.09.2015)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:13143
MFA No. 8909 of 2013
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:23.03.2012
PASSED IN MVC NO.1066/2012 ON THE FILE OF FAST TRACK
COURT-I AND ADDITIONAL MACT, MYSORE.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR
FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Sri.H.V.Bhanu Prakash., learned counsel for the appellant
and Sri.S.V.Hegde Mulkhand., learned counsel for respondent
No.2 have appeared in person.
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 25th day
of May 2012 at about 11:15 a.m., he was proceeding in his car
bearing Reg. No.KA-01-MD-7700 along with his cousin from
Chikkamagalur towards Mysore via Hunsur road. When they
reached near H.P. Petrol Bunk, Hinkal Ring Road Signal Point, a
lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-01-C-2367 came from the opposite
direction in a rash and negligent manner and took turn towards
NC: 2024:KHC:13143
right side cross road and hit the car of the claimant. Due to the
impact, the car was damaged. Immediately, the car was taken
to Sagar Autotech Pvt. Ltd., Mysore to effect necessary repairs
and it is said that huge amount was spent towards repair of the
car. Contending that he is entitled for the compensation for the
damaged vehicle, the claimant filed the claim petition.
After the issuance of the notice, the respondents
appeared through their counsel. The second respondent filed
written statement and denied the averments made in the claim
petition. Among other grounds it 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:23.03.2013 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.
4. Learned counsel for the respective parties have
urged several contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on
NC: 2024:KHC:13143
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. The specific contention of the claimant is that he
purchased the car bearing Reg. No.KA-01-MD-7700 on the 23rd
day of May 2012 and the accident occurred on the 25th day of
May 2012.
An attempt is made on behalf of the clamant to contend
that he was the owner of the Car as on the date of the accident
by placing reliance on Ex.P.6 RC Book.
Ex.R.2 is the "B" Register Extract relating to the said Car,
which depicts that one Saransh Palta Singh is the owner of the
car from 11.10.2002 upto 06.06.2012. Therefore, it can be
safely concluded that the claimant was not the owner of the Car
as on the date of accident. The Tribunal extenso referred to the
material on record and rightly rejected the clam petition. I find
no reasons to interfere with the Judgment of the Tribunal.
NC: 2024:KHC:13143
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
