Karnataka High Court
Smt. Mani M vs M/S The Reliance on 1 April, 2024
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:13076
MFA No. 2098 of 2015
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.2098 OF 2015(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SMT. MANI.M
W/O NAGESH,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT D.KAALENAHALLI,
HADUGOOR POST,
KASABA HOBLI,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. SREEVIDHYA., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. T.N.VISWANATHA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S. THE RELIANCE
GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD,
BRANCH OFFICE NO.28,
Digitally signed by
THEJASKUMAR N 5TH FLOOR, EAST WING,
Location: HIGH CENTENARY BUILDING,
COURT OF M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER.
2. MR. SOMASHEKAR
S/O SRI.HANUMANTHE GOWDA,
MAJOR,
R/AT NO. 180, 4TH MAIN ROAD,
LAKSHMIDEVI NAGAR,
NANDINI LAYOUT,
BENGALURU-560 096.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.PRADEEP., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2-HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DATED:19.07.2021)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:13076
MFA No. 2098 of 2015
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:06.09.2014
PASSED IN MVC NO.7537/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE XX
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT,
BANGALORE.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Smt.Sreevidya., learned counsel on behalf of
Sri.T.N.Viswanatha., for the appellant and Sri.B.Pradeep.,
learned counsel for respondent No.1 have appeared in person.
Notice to the respondents was ordered on 06.08.2015. A
perusal of the daily order sheet depicts that vide order
dated:19.07.2021 notice to respondent No.2 is held sufficient.
He has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor
conducted the case as party in person.
2. Though the appeal is listed today for admission, it is
heard finally.
NC: 2024:KHC:13076
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 the 21st day of December 2007 at about 7:15 pm., the
claimant was traveling in a Auto bearing Registration No.KA-13-
A-2486 from D.Kaalenahalli to Thimmapura on NH-48,
Bangalore - Mangalore Road, near Baragoor Hand post,
C.R.Patna Taluk, Hassan District. At that time, a driver of a Car
bearing Registration No.KA-02-P-2213 came in a rash and
negligent manner and hit the auto. Due to the impact, the
claimant fell and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, she
was shifted to General Hospital, Channarayapatna for first aid
and later was shifted to Kumaraswamy Nursing Home and
again was shifted to KIMS Hospital for better treatment.
Contending that she is entitled for compensation, the claimant
filed claim petition.
In response to the notice, the second respondent
remained absent before the Tribunal and hence, he was placed
ex-parte. The first respondent Insurance Company appeared
through its counsel and filed statement of objections denying
NC: 2024:KHC:13076
the petition averments. Among other grounds, it prayed for
dismissal of the petition.
Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed
issues, parties led evidence and marked the documents. The
Tribunal vide Judgment dated: 06.09.2014 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.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant and respondent
No.1 have urged several contentions. Heard, the contentions
urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the
appeal papers and also the records 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. An attempt is made on behalf of the claimant to
contend that she sustained grievous injuries on account of road
traffic accident, but the record speaks otherwise. The claimant
examined herself as PW1 and admits that she was not hit by a
Car. The Tribunal extenso referred to the material on record
NC: 2024:KHC:13076
and concluded that the manner in which the charge sheet is
filed creates a suspicious circumstances regarding the
involvement of the offending Car in the accident. In my view,
the conclusion so arrived at by the Tribunal is just and proper. I
find no grounds 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
