Karnataka High Court
The Manager vs Jayaramu on 5 April, 2024
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:14163
MFA No. 3028 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3028 OF 2014(MV-D)
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER,
ICICI LOMBARD GIC LTD.,
NO.89, II FLOOR, AVR COMPLEX,
MADIVALA, BANGALORE-68.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRADEEP.B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. JAYARAMU
S/O LATE RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
2. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
W/O JAYARAMU,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
3. UMESHA
Digitally signed by W/O JAYARAMU,
THEJASKUMAR N
Location: HIGH
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
ALL ARE R/AT HEGGADEGERE VILLAGE,
BIDADI HOBLI,
URUGAPURA POST,
RAMANAGARA-562 117.
4. NAGENDRA.H
S/O HANUMAIAH,
HEGGEDEGERE VILLAGE,
URAGAPURA POST, BIDADI HOBLI,
RAMANAGARA TALUK-562 117.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RITHISH.D.NAIK., ADVOCATE FOR
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:14163
MFA No. 3028 of 2014
SRI. T.P.VIVEKANANDA., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. K.SHANTHARAJ., 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:17.02.2014
PASSED IN MVC NO.494/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, CHANNAPATTANA, RAMANAGAR
DISTRICT.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR
FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Sri.Pradeep.B., learned counsel for the appellant and
Sri.Rithish D.Naik., learned counsel on behalf of
Sri.T.P.Vivekananda., for respondents 1 to 3 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:
It is contended that on the twenty-sixth day of December
2011 at about 3:30 pm., Mr.Anantha was going on a Motorcycle
bearing registration No.KA-42-L-2873 as a pillion rider. It is
said that Nagendra - the first respondent rode the motorcycle
in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the divider near
Shankar Natikoli Daba at Vaderahalli on B.M.Road. Due to the
NC: 2024:KHC:14163
forced impact, Mr.Anantha fell and sustained grievous injuries
and succumbed to injuries on the spot itself. Contending that
they are the dependents of deceased Mr.Anantha, the claimants
filed a claim petition seeking compensation.
In response to the notice, the respondents appeared
through their counsel. The first respondent did not file written
statement. 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:17.02.2014 allowed the petition
in part. The Insurance Company has assailed the Judgment of
the Tribunal in this appeal on several grounds as set-out in the
Memorandum of appeal.
4. Counsel Sri.B.Pradeep., in presenting his arguments
submits that the Judgment of the Tribunal is contrary to the
evidence on record and law. He drew the attention of the Court
to Ex.P.1 FIR to contend that deceased Mr.Anantha was himself
riding the motorcycle and Nagendra was the pillion rider and
NC: 2024:KHC:14163
deceased himself hit the divider and caused the accident and
died on the spot. Counsel submits that the Tribunal has
overlooked this aspect of the matter and erroneously awarded
compensation. Counsel therefore, submits that the claim
petition may be rejected and the appeal may be allowed.
Counsel Sri.Rithish D.Naik., justified the Judgment of the
Tribunal. He submits that the appeal is devoid of merits and the
same may be dismissed.
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. A perusal of Ex.P.1 FIR depicts that Eye witness by
name Rangaswamy has given a complaint stating that on
26.12.2011 Anantha was riding the motorcycle and Nagendra
was a pillion rider. Mr.Anantha himself hit the divider and on
account of the same, he fell from bike and died on the spot. If
that be so, the Tribunal ought to have considered the fact that
NC: 2024:KHC:14163
deceased Anantha was riding the motorcycle, he himself hit the
divider and caused accident and died on the spot. Needless to
observe that owing to his own negligent Mr.Anantha hit the
divider and succumbed to injuries. The Tribunal has overlooked
this aspect of the matter and erroneously determined
compensation. This is unsustainable in law. I may venture to
say that the Tribunal has failed to have regard to relevant
consideration and disregarded relevant matters.
7. For the reasons stated above, the Judgment
dated:17.02.2014 passed by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC &
MACT, Channapattana in M.V.C.No.494/2012 is liable to be set-
aside. Accordingly, it is set-aside. The Claim Petition is
rejected.
8. Resultantly, the Miscellaneous First Appeal is
allowed.
The Registry concerned is directed to refund the amount
in deposit to the Insurance company, after due identification.
Sd/-
JUDGE
TKN
