Karnataka High Court
P S Lakshmi vs Mahesh on 3 April, 2024
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:13565
MFA No. 5571 of 2014
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. 5571 OF 2014 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. P.S.LAKSHMI
W/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
2. A.T.CHANDAN
S/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
3. A.T.YATHISHA
S/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
BALAGUPPE VILLAGE,
GENDEHALLI POST,
KASABA HOBLI, BELUR TALUK,
Digitally signed by HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201.
THEJASKUMAR N ...APPELLANTS
Location: HIGH
COURT OF (BY SRI. BYRAREDDY., ADVOCATE FOR
KARNATAKA SMT. KAVITHA.H.C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MAHESH
S/O CHIKKEGOWDA,
AGED MAJOR,
R/O BEHIND HALAPPASHETTY,
BUILDING SANTHEPETE,
HASSAN-573 201.
(OWNER OF THE BIKE BEARING
REG. NO. KA-13-U-1878).
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:13565
MFA No. 5571 of 2014
2. THE MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
VENKATESHWARA BUILDING, P.B.,
NO. 108, B.M.ROAD,
HASSAN-573 201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. CHETHAN.B., ADVOCATE R1;
SRI. K.SURESH., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:11.04.2014
PASSED IN MVC NO.1912/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, BELUR.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR
DISMISSAL, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Sri.Byrareddy., learned counsel on behalf of
Smt.Kavitha.H.C., for the appellants has appeared in person.
Though the appeal is listed today for hearing on
Interlocutory Application, it is heard finally.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be
referred to as per their status and ranking before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts are these:
On the 23rd day of April 2012 at about 2:30 p.m.,
Mr.Thimmegowda was going on a motorcycle bearing
NC: 2024:KHC:13565
Registration No.KA-09-EE-376 as a pillion rider near Gorimat,
Belur to Gendehalli road. At that time, a motorcycle bearing
Registration No.KA-13-U-1878 came in a rash and negligent
manner and hit the claimant's motorcycle. Due to the forced
impact, Mr.Thimmegowda sustained grievous injury and
succumbed to injuries in the hospital. Contending that they are
the legal representatives of deceased Mr.Thimmegowda., the
claimants filed claim petition seeking compensation.
In response to the notice, the respondents appeared
through their counsel and filed 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:11.04.2014 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.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants has urged
several contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of
NC: 2024:KHC:13565
the appellants 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.
6. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require
reiteration. The accident occurred on the 23rd day of April 2012.
It is contended that one Kantharaju was riding the motorcycle
on which the deceased was a pillion rider and Girish and
Chandrashekar were present at the place of accident and
witnessed the accident and they shifted both Kantharaju and
Thimmegowda to Belur Hospital. Strangely, the claimants have
not examined Girish and Chandrashekar who appears to have
witnessed the accident and shifted the rider and the pillion rider
to the hospital.
Furthermore, the accident occurred on the 23rd day of
April 2012, but the complaint is given by Kantharaju on the 24th
day of April 2012. There is a delay of one day in making a
complaint. An attempt is made on behalf of the claimants to
contend that Thimmegowda and Kantharaju were taking
treatment in the hospital. Hence, there is a delay in making a
NC: 2024:KHC:13565
complaint. The said contention cannot be accepted. The
reasons is simple. The claimants have not produced the Wound
Certificate or any material document pertaining to Kantharaju
to show that he sustained injuries and was taking treatment in
the hospital to contend that there is a delay in making a
complaint. Hence, it can be safely concluded that it's not a
genuine case. The Tribunal extenso referred to material on
record and dismissed the claim petition. I find no reason 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.
7. Resultantly, the Miscellaneous First Appeal is
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MRP
