Karnataka High Court
Mr B Shivaram vs Dr Deen Prakash Baradwaj on 3 April, 2024
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:13618
MFA No. 10135 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 10135 OF 2013
(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
MR. B.SHIVARAM
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
S/O B.CHINNAPPA GOWDA,
R/O ALTHYADKA HOUSE,
AJJAVARA VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK,
D.K.DISTRICT-574 201.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHREEKANTH.A., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. KARUNAKARA.P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DR. DEEN PRAKASH BARADWAJ
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
S/O B.K.BHAT,
SHRI. NILAYA BARADWAJASHRAM,
Digitally signed by ARAMBOOR, SULLIA,
THEJASKUMAR N D.K DISTRICT-574 201.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
MANGALORE DIVISION,
MANGALORE,
D.K.DISTRICT-575 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(R1-APPEAL AGAINS DISMISSED V/O DATED:05.10.2015;
BY SRI. K.SRIDHARA ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:13618
MFA No. 10135 of 2013
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:18.01.2012
PASSED IN MVC NO.213/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER,
MACT, PUTTUR ITINERATE AT SULLIA, D.K.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Sri.Shreekanth.A., learned counsel on behalf of
Sri.Karunakara.P., for the appellant and Sri.K.Sridhara.,
learned counsel for respondent No.2 have appeared in person.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their status and rankings before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts are these:
On the 07th day of February 2009 at about 01:30 pm.,
the claimant was riding along with pillion riders on a motorcycle
bearing Registration No.KA-21-E-1254 on K.V.G.College road at
Sullia. When he reached near the K.V.G Ayurvedic College, a
Car bearing Registration No.KA-21-E-5833 came in a rash and
negligent manner from opposite side and hit the motorbike.
Due to the impact, the claimant sustained injuries.
Immediately, he was shifted to K.V.G Hospital, Sullia, where he
NC: 2024:KHC:13618
took treatment. Contending that he is entitled for
compensation, the claimant filed claim petition.
In response to the notice, respondents appeared through
their counsel. The second respondent Insurance Company 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:18.01.2012 dismissed the claim
petition. The claimant has assailed the Judgment of the
Tribunal 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 also the records with utmost care.
5. The point that requires consideration is whether the
Tribunal is justified in dismissing the Claim Petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:13618
6. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require
reiteration. It is not in dispute that the accident occurred on the
07th day of February 2009. An attempt is made on behalf of the
claimant to contend that the accident occurred on account of
rash and negligent driving of the offending Car. In this Court
also he has adhered to the said contention. The said contention
cannot be accepted. The reason is simple. A perusal of the
police records depicts that the claimant was charge sheeted for
the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 of IPC,
Sections 128(a) R/w Section 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act and
Section 146 R/w Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Thus,
he was triple riding on the motorbike. The Tribunal extenso
referred to the material on record and concluded that the
accident took place due to the rash and negligent riding of the
motorbike by its rider i.e., the claimant, hence he is not entitled
for any compensation. 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:13618
7. Resultantly, the Miscellaneous First Appeal is
rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
TKN
