Karnataka High Court
Sri Raghuram vs Abdul Reheman on 3 April, 2024
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:13616
MFA No. 4930 of 2015
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.4930 OF 2015(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAGHURAM
S/O MADHAVA AITHAL,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MALEMAR,
ARYAMARGA, ASHOKNAGAR,
MANGALORE, D.K.DISTRICT-575 006.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. P.VITTALA SHETTY., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ABDUL REHEMAN
S/O LATE MOHAMMED,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
RESIDNG AT SUNDARI BAAGH,
MASTHIKATTE, ULLAL, MANGALORE,
D.K.DISTRICT-560 020.
Digitally signed by
THEJASKUMAR N 2. THE MANAGER,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF FUTURE GENERAL INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
KARNATAKA AHSOK PILLAR ROAD,
JAYANAGAR 1ST BLOCK,
BANGALORE-560 011.
3. B.USMAN
S/O LATE ABDUL RAHIMAN,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
AL-AMEEN COTTAGE,
SUNDARI BAAGH,
MASTHIKATTE, ULLAL,
MANGALORE,
D.K.DISTRICT-560 020.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:13616
MFA No. 4930 of 2015
4. TATA AIG INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
WEST COAST MOTORS,
OLD KANKANADY ROAD,
MANGALORE-575 002.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(R1 AND 3-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
BY SRI. B.PRADEEP., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. RAVI.S.SAMPRATHI., ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:06.03.2015
PASSED IN MVC NO.536/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE I
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MACT-II, D.K.,
MANGALURU.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Sri.P.Vittala Shetty., learned counsel for the appellant,
Sri.B.Pradeep., learned counsel for respondent No.2 and
Sri.Ravi.S.Samprathi., learned counsel for respondent No.4
have appeared in person.
Notice to respondents 1 and 3 were ordered on
15.12.2017. A perusal of the office note depicts that
respondents 1 and 3 are served and unrepresented. They have
NC: 2024:KHC:13616
neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the
case as a party in person.
2. Though the appeal is listed today for admission, it is
heard finally.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their status and rankings before the Tribunal.
4. It is the case of the claimant that on the 13th day of
March 2013 at about 9:30 a.m., he was riding his motor cycle
bearing Reg.No.KA-19-EF-5045 from Mangalore to Moodbidri
side slowly by observing all the traffic rules and when he
reached near Mulki cross road Puthige village, a Mahindra
Maximo bearing Reg. No.KA-19-D-1092 came in a rash and
negligent manner and hit him. Due to the impact, the claimant
sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to A.J
Hospital Mangalore where he took treatment as an inpatient.
Contending that he is entitled for compensation, the claimant
filed claim petition.
In response to the notice, the third respondent did not
appear and he placed ex-parte. Respondents 1, 2 and 4
appeared through their respective counsel and filed objections
NC: 2024:KHC:13616
denying the petition averments. Among other grounds, they
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:06.03.2015 allowed the petition
in part. The owner of the offending vehicle has assailed the
Judgment of the Tribunal in this appeal on several grounds as
set-out in the Memorandum of appeal.
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
Judgment of the Tribunal requires interference.
6. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require
reiteration. The Tribunal extenso referred to the material on
record and concluded that the accident occurred due to the
negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and
directed the owner of the offending vehicle to pay the
compensation to the claimant. This is unsustainable in law. In
NC: 2024:KHC:13616
view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in MUKUND
DEWANGAN's case, the Insurance Company is liable to satisfy
the award.
In so far as quantum of the award is concerned, the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal remains intact.
7. For the reasons stated above, the Judgment
dated:06.03.2015 passed by the MACT, D.K., Mangalore in
M.V.C.No.536/2013 the second respondent Insurance Company
is directed to satisfy the award of the Tribunal with 6% interest
within two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy
of the Judgment.
8. Resultantly, the Miscellaneous First Appeal is
allowed.
The Registry concerned is directed to transmit the records
and the amount in deposit, if any to the Tribunal forthwith for
refund of the same to the owner of the offending vehicle.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MRP
