Karnataka High Court
Muniyappa vs Sunil Kumar on 2 April, 2024
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:13292
MFA No. 4892 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.4892 OF 2015(MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. MUNIYAPPA
S/O NANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.1045,
4TH CROSS, KALASTHINAGAR,
T.DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU
(FATHER OF THE DECEASED M.VENUGOPAL)
2. MUNIYAMMA
W/O MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.1045,
4TH CROSS, KALASTHINAGAR,
T.DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU.
(MOTHER OF THE DECEASED M.VENUGOPAL)
3. M.CHANDRASHEKAR
Digitally signed by
THEJASKUMAR N S/O MUNIYAPPA,
Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA RESIDING AT NO.1045, 4TH CROSS,
KALASTHINAGAR, T.DASARAHALLI,
BENGALURU.
(BROTHER OF THE DECEASED M.VENUGOPAL)
4. KRISHNAMMA
D/O MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.1045, 4TH CROSS,
KALASTHINAGAR, T.DASARAHALLI,
BENGALURU.
(SISTER OF THE DECEASED M.VENUGOPAL)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:13292
MFA No. 4892 of 2015
5. SUSHILA
D/O MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.1045, 4TH CROSS,
KALASTHINAGAR, T.DASARAHALLI,
BENGALURU.
(SISTER OF DECEASED M.VENUGOPAL).
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SHEKARAPPA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SUNIL KUMAR
S/O KRISHNA MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
NO.2462, GANGAHANUMAIAH BUILDING,
BEHIND RAGHAVENDRA NURSING HOME,
K.G.BADAVANE,M.DASARAHALLI,
BENGALURU-57.
(OWNER OF THE VEHICLE BEARING
NO. KA 02 HP 9812).
2. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
GROUND FLOOR NO.31, TBR TOWER,
1ST CROSS, NEW MISSION ROAD,
NEAR BENGALURU STOCK EXCHANGE,
BENGALURU-27.
(INSURER OF THE VEHICLE NO. KA 02 HP 9812).
3. G.KRISHNAPPA S/O GOVINDAPPA,
NO.220, 2ND CROSS, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
RAJGOPAL NAGAR, BENGALURU-58.
(OWNER OF VEHICLE NO. KA 02 EZ 2232).
4. SRI. K.K.PRASHANTH
S/O KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
NO.220, 1ST MAIN, 2ND A CROSS,
RAJAGOPALNAGAR,
BENGALURU-58.
(PILLAN RIDER OF THE VEHICLE NO.
KA 02 HP 9812, SON OF RESPONDENT NO.3)
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:13292
MFA No. 4892 of 2015
5. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
D.O.XII (672300, 1ST FLOOR, MAYOR COMPLEX,
PENYA, BENGALURU-58.
INSURER OF THE VEHICLE NO. KA 02 EZ 2232).
...RESPONDENTS
(R1-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
BY SRI. P.B.RAJU., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. V.CHANDRAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4;
SRI. A.N.KRISHNASWAMY., ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:26.03.2015
PASSED IN MVC NO.4087/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES
AND MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Sri.Shekarappa., learned counsel for the appellants and
Sri.P.B.Raju., learned counsel for respondent No.2 have
appeared in person.
2. Notice to the respondents was ordered on
12.02.2016. A perusal of the office note depicts that notice to
the first respondent is served and unrepresented. He has
NC: 2024:KHC:13292
neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the
case as party in person.
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 02nd day of December 2012 at about 6:30 pm.,
deceased Mr.M.Venugopal was riding a motorcycle bearing
Registration No.KA-02 HP-9812 along with one K.Sunil Kumar
as a pillion rider who is the RC owner of the motorcycle. It is
said that when they came near Peenya Industrial area, 4th
main, 3rd cross, 3rd phase, Fashion Matric Factory junction from
South to North direction, the fourth respondent being the rider
of a two wheeler bearing Registration No.KA-02-EZ-2232 came
in a rash and negligent manner and hit their motorcycle. Due to
the forced impact, Mr.M.Venugopal fell and sustained grievous
injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Premier Sanjeevini
Hospital, but he succumbed to injuries on the very same day.
Contending that they are the dependents of deceased
NC: 2024:KHC:13292
Mr.M.Venugopal, the claimants filed claim petition seeking
compensation.
In response to the notice, respondents appeared through
their counsel. The first respondent did not file statement of
objections. The other respondents filed separate statement of
objections denying the petition averments. Among other
grounds, they 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:26.03.2015 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
and also the records with utmost care.
7. The point that requires consideration is whether the
Tribunal is justified in dismissing the Claim petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:13292
8. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require
reiteration. The claimants are the dependents of deceased
Mr.M.Venugopal. They contended that Mr.M.Venugopal was hit
by a rider of two wheeler and succumbed to injuries. However,
the material on record speaks otherwise. A perusal of the
documentary evidence reveals that Mr.K.Prashanth - the fourth
respondent himself gave a complaint against Mr.M.Venugopal
stating that he came in a rash and negligent manner under the
influence of alcohol and caused the accident. A perusal of the
complaint clearly depicts that it is a case of drunk and drive
and deceased Mr.M.Venugopal was chargesheeted. The Tribunal
extenso referred to the material on record and rightly
concluded that as per the police papers itself, the accident took
place because of the negligent riding of deceased and he was
also charge sheeted for not having driving license and there is
a breach of Policy Conditions and consequently, dismissed the
claim petition. In my view, 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 rejected.
NC: 2024:KHC:13292
9. Resultantly, the Miscellaneous First Appeal is
rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
TKN
