Karnataka High Court
Sri.Ashok vs Sri. Shiva B on 2 April, 2024
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:13290
MFA No. 3232 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3232 OF 2015(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI.ASHOK
S/O LATE KEREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
GANGADAHOSAHALLI VILLAGE,
HAMPAPURA HOBLI,
H.D.KOTE TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT.
PRESENT R/AT NO.91,
1ST CROSS, RAJENDRANAGARA,
MYSORE.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ARJUN KUMAR.J.H., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. H.V.BHANUPRAKASH., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. SHIVA.B
Digitally signed by
S/O HUCHAAIAH,
THEJASKUMAR N AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
Location: HIGH R/AT HOUSE NO.105,
COURT OF 6TH CROSS, NAZHERBAD MAIN ROAD,
KARNATAKA
MYSORE-570 010.
2. SRI. V.P.NAGESH,
S/O PACHIDARINATHA CHITTER,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT HOUSE NO.196/2,
KETESHATHRAIAH ROAD,
K.R.MOHALLA,
MYSORE-570 024.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:13290
MFA No. 3232 of 2015
3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
GOBICHATTIPALYAM,
TAMILNADU-52.
...RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO R1 AND R2-HELD SUFFICIENT
V/O DATED:09.08.2021;
BY SRI. ANUP SETHARAMA RAO., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. B.C.SEETHARAMA RAO., ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:19.10.2013
PASSED IN MVC NO.1221/2012 ON THE FILE OF III
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE AND MACT, MYSURU.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Sri.Arjun Kumar.J.H., learned counsel on behalf of
Sri.H.V.Bhanu Prakash., for the appellant and Sri.Anup
Seetharama Rao., learned counsel on behalf of
Sri.B.C.Seetharama Rao., for respondent No.3 have appeared
in person.
2. Notice to the respondents was ordered on
15.02.2017. A perusal of the daily order sheet depicts that vide
order dated:09.08.2021 notice to respondents 1 and 2 is held
sufficient. They have neither engaged the services of an
advocate nor conducted the case as party in person.
NC: 2024:KHC:13290
3. Though the appeal is listed today for admission, it is
heard finally.
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their status and rankings before the Tribunal.
5. The brief facts are these:
On the 15th day of October 2011 at about 9:15 am., one
Nagendra was riding his Discovery motorcycle bearing
Registration No.KA-11-R-5525 and the claimant was a pillion
rider. They were proceeding at Bhogadi road near Karnataka
Bank, towards West to East. It is said that a motorcycle came
from the left side and hit their motorcycle. It is also contended
that a lorry bearing Registration No.KA-21-43 came from
Mysore side in a rash and negligent manner and hit their
motorcycle. Due to the impact, the claimant fell and sustained
grievous injuries. He took treatment as an inpatient at
Kamakshi hospital, Mysore. Contending that he is entitled for
compensation, the claimant filed claim petition.
In response to the notice, respondents 1 and 2 remained
absent before the tribunal and hence, they were placed ex-
parte. The third respondent Insurance Company appeared
NC: 2024:KHC:13290
through its counsel and filed written statement 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:19.10.2013 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.
6. 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.
7. The point that requires consideration is whether the
Tribunal is justified in dismissing the Claim Petition.
8. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require
reiteration. Suffice it to note that the claimant was a pillion
rider. Nagendra the rider and the claimant were traveling on a
motorcycle. It is contended that all of a sudden, another
motorcycle came from left side and the rider Nagendra went to
NC: 2024:KHC:13290
the extreme right side of the road to avoid hitting the
motorcycle. It is not in dispute that a lorry was coming from
the opposite direction, hence the rider Nagendra should have
been more careful in riding the motorcycle, however he lost
control over the motorcycle and fell. Therefore, the driver of a
lorry cannot be held responsible for the accident. There is no
actual collision between the lorry and the motorcycle on which
the claimant was traveling as a pillion rider. The Tribunal
extenso referred to the material on record and rightly dismissed
the Claim Petition. In my opinion, the conclusion 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 dismissed.
9. Resultantly, the Miscellaneous First Appeal is
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
TKN
