Karnataka High Court
Bhagyamma vs M/S Durga Sree Constructions on 9 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:5601
MFA No. 6682 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6682 OF 2013 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. BHAGYAMMA
W/O LATE R SEETHARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
2. SRI R S RAVIKUMAR
S/O LATE R SEETHARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
3. KUM SUNANDA
D/O LATE R SEETHARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
4. KUM MANJULA
D/O LATE R SEETHARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
Digitally
S. VADDAHALLI VILLAGE, NANGAGUDI HOBLI,
signed by HOSAKOTE TALUK,
BHARATHI S
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF ...APPELLANTS
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. GOPAL KRISHNA N.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S DURGA SREE CONSTRUCTIONS
NO.7, 1ST FLOOR, 12TH CROSS
BELLARY MAIN ROAD
GANGANAGAR
BANGALORE-560032
REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:5601
MFA No. 6682 of 2013
2. M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
SRINVIASA MARKET COMPLEX
NO.1974, CINEMA ROAD
DODDABALLAPUR - 561203
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
REP BY THE MANAGER
3. SRI N G VIJAYA DEV
S/O SRI GIRIYAPPA
MAJOR IN AGE
RESIDING AT NO. 225
NELAVAGILU POST
HOSAKOTE TALUK - 562114
BANGALORE DISTRICT
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRUTHVI WODEYAR.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R3;
SRI. JANARDHAN REDDY., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 01.04.2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO.5526/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE,
MACT, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The present appeal is filed by the claimant challenging
the Judgment and Award dated 01.04.2013 passed in
MVC.No.5526/2003 by the XVI Addl. Judge, MACT, Bangalore,
wherein the claim petition is dismissed.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are
referred as per their rank before the Tribunal.
NC: 2024:KHC:5601
3. The relevant facts necessary for the consideration of
the above appeal are that claiming compensation for death of
one Sri R. Seetharamaiah (here-in-after referred to as
deceased), his wife and children filed a claim petition before
the Tribunal. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased
was traveling in a Maruthi Van bearing No.KA04-M-8629 on the
Chintamani-Bangalore road and due to the over speeding by
the driver of the van, the said vehicle hit the road side tree
causing the accident in question, wherein the deceased
sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. The
owner of the van and insurer were arrayed as Respondent No.1
and 2 before the Tribunal.
4. The claimant No.2 examined himself as PW-1 and one
Manjunath who was traveling along with the deceased in the
vehicle was examined as PW-2. The insurer examined its
representative as RW-1 and the investigator as RW-2. Ex.P-1
to P-14 were marked on behalf of the claimants and Ex.R-1 to
R-13 were marked on behalf of the Insurer. Respondent No.1-
Owner was placed exparte in the proceedings before the
Tribunal.
5. The Tribunal by Judgment and Award dated
22.09.2005 allowed the claim petition and awarded a
compensation of Rs.4,02,000/- with interest at 6% per annum.
NC: 2024:KHC:5601
Being aggrieved by the insurer preferred MFA.No.843/2009
before this Court. This Court by its Judgment dated
21.09.2011, allowed the appeal filed by the insurer, set aside
the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and remanded
the matter back to the Tribunal for re-consideration.
6. Consequent to remand, the respondent No.2- insurer
impleaded the respondent No.3 who was the owner of the
maruthi zen car bearing No.KA-02/N-5170 as party
representative before the Tribunal and he filed his statement of
objections. Subsequent to remand, the Respondent No.1-
owner of the van filed his statement of objections before the
Tribunal. The claimant did not adduce any further evidence
after remand. The Respondent No.2-Insurer, after remand,
adducedd the evidence of RW-3 to RW-9. Thereafter the
Tribunal by its Judgment and Award dated 01.04.2013
dismissed the claim petition. Being aggrieved the present
appeal is filed.
7. The learned counsel for the Appellant assailing the
judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, vehemently
contends that although in the claim petition, the claimants had
averred that the accident was caused due to the deceased
traveling in maruthi van bearing No. KA04-M-8629, the
Tribunal having been recorded a finding that the accident was
NC: 2024:KHC:5601
caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the maruthi car
bearing No. KA02/N-5170 and the owner of the said car having
been arrayed as respondent No.3 before the Tribunal, the
compensation ought to have been awarded. Hence, he seeks
for allowing of the above appeal and granting of the relief's
sought for.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondent
No.2-insurer opposing the above appeal submits that the
insurer has adequately demonstrated the fraud that has been
perpetrated by the claimants and the dismissal of the claim
petition by the Tribunal is just and proper. Further he seeks for
awarding of suitable costs.
9. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 and 3
owners of the vehicles also justifies the stand taken by the
owners before Tribunal.
10. The submissions of the learned counsel have been
considered and the material on record including the records of
the Tribunal have been perused. The question that arises for
consideration is "whether the Judgment of the Tribunal
dismissing the claim petition is erroneous and liable to
interfered with? ".
11. It is the definite case of the claimants in the claim
petition that the accident occurred when the deceased was
NC: 2024:KHC:5601
traveling in the maruthi van bearing No. KA04-M-8629. The
insurer has contested the said proceedings, inter-alia, on the
ground that the accident occurred when the deceased was
traveling in a maruthi car bearing No.KA02/N-5170 and having
regard to the fact that the said car was not insured,
subsequently, the claimants in collusion with the police
authorities have attempted to implicate the maruthi van in the
accident in question.
12. The Tribunal, while appreciating the oral and
documentary evidence on record, noticed that in the complaint
on the basis of which the FIR (EX.P-1) was lodged, it shows
that the criminal has been registered against the driver of the
car. It is further noticed that charge sheet (Ex.P-8) has been
filed against the driver of the van. Further it is noticed that the
statement given by the wife of the deceased to the insurer
stating that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the
driver of the car. The Tribunal has also adequately appreciated
the evidence adduced by respondents after remand wherein
they have examined RW-3 to RW-9 and marked Ex.R-1 to R-6
which conclusively demonstrate that the vehicle involved in the
accident in question was the car and there after the maruthi
van was sought to be implicated in the accident.
NC: 2024:KHC:5601
13. The owner of the both the vehicles, after remand,
have merely denied the averments made in the claim petition.
Further the other oral and documentary evidence on record
including the evidence of the Doctor-RW-8, evidence of the PSI
RW-9 as well as evidence of the official of the RTO RW-5 as
also the other documentary evidence on record, conclusively
demonstrates involvement of the van in the accident in
question.
14. Although the death of the deceased is unfortunate
and the loss caused to the claimants is irrepairable, the same
doesn't, by any stretch of imagination justify the involvement
of the vehicle that was not connected in the accident in
question. The claimants having pleaded a definite case before
the Tribunal that the accident involved was while the deceased
was traveling in the maruthi van and the material on record
adequately indicates that the van in question was not involved
in the accident. The finding recorded by the Tribunal is just
and proper. The appellant has failed in demonstrating that the
said findings recorded by the Tribunal is any manner erroneous
and contrary to the material available on record and liable to
interfered with the present appeal. Accordingly question
framed for consideration is answered in the negative.
NC: 2024:KHC:5601
15. In view of the aforementioned, the following order
is passed:
ORDER
i) The above appeal is dismissed.
ii) The judgment and award dated 01.04.2013 passed
in MVC.No.5526/2003 on the file of the XVI Addl.
Judge, MACT, Bengaluru, is affirmed.
No costs.
SD/-
JUDGE
TS
