Karnataka High Court
Sri Madesh H C vs Sri Chandrappa on 26 February, 2024
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:7853
MFA No. 8506 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8506 OF 2014(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI.MADESH.H.C.
S/O CHINNAPPA HEGDE,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
POLICE CONSTABLE,
KSRP. MACHENAHALLI,
R/AT C/O H.C. GANESH,
VINAYAKA BANANA SHOP,
NEAR USHA NURSING HOME,
SOWLANGA ROAD,
SHIMOGA CITY - 577 201.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.N.VIJAYA KUMAR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI.CHANDRAPPA
Digitally signed by S/O.VENKATESH NAIDU,
THEJASKUMAR N D.NO. 533, 6TH & 7TH CROSS,
Location: HIGH ROAD, NEW TOWN,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA BHADRAVATHI - 577 301.
OWNER OF THE MOTOR CYCLE
YAMAHA CRUX BEARING,
REGN. NO.KA-16-K 5909.
2. SRI. ASHOK KUMAR
S/O MUBISWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
CARPENTER,
R/AT ANJANEYA, AGRAHARA,
3RD CROSS, BHADRAVATHI,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:7853
MFA No. 8506 of 2014
RIDER OF THE MOTOR CYCLE
YAMAHA CRUX BEARING,
REGN. NO.KA-16-K-5909.
3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BHADRAVATHI/SHIMOGA - 577 201.
...RESPONDENTS
(R1 IS ABATED - V/O DATED:30.06.2022
R2-DISPENSED WITH;
SRI.B.C.SEETHARAM RAO., ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF KARNATAKA MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:17.9.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.1035/2012 ON THE FILE
OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT-VII,
SHIVAMOGGA.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Sri.N.Vijaya Kumara., learned counsel for the appellant
has appeared in person.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be
referred to as per their status and ranking before the Tribunal.
3. It is the case of the claimant that he is a Police
Constable and on 21.07.2012 at about 12:45 pm., he was
riding his Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-
NC: 2024:KHC:7853
14-V-4316 towards St.Charles School, to bring his children
from the school. At that time, the second respondent being the
rider of Yamaha Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-16-K-
5909, came in a rash and negligent manner and hit against his
bike from backside. As a result of which, the claimant fell down
from the bike and sustained grievous injuries to his right ankle
joint and other parts of the body. Immediately with the help of
his friends he was shifted to Shiva Clinic, Bhadravathi and took
treatment till 03.08.2012.
It is said that the injuries were grievous in nature, hence,
he was shifted to KMC Hospital, Manipal and took treatment as
an in-patient from 04.08.2012 to 16.08.2012. Contending that
the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of
the motorcycle by the second respondent, he filed a claim
petition claiming compensation.
After the issuance of the notice, respondents 1 and 3
appeared through their counsel and respondent No.2 did not
appeared and hence, he was placed ex-parte. The Insurance
Company filed its objections and denied the entire claim of the
claimant and seriously disputed the involvement of Yamaha
NC: 2024:KHC:7853
Motor Cycle in the alleged accident and prayed for the dismissal
of the claim petition.
Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the
issues and the claimant led evidence and got marked the
documents. The policy was marked as Ex.R.1 with consent. The
Tribunal vide Judgment dated:17.09.2013 rejected 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
Miscellaneous First Appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
Judgment of the Tribunal is contrary to the evidence on record
and law.
Next, he submits that the respondents did not contest the
case and not denied the claim by adducing evidence. Hence,
the Tribunal has erred in rejecting the claim petition.
A further submission is made that the oral and
documentary evidence on record would clearly establish that
the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of
the motorcycle by the second respondent.
NC: 2024:KHC:7853
Learned counsel vehemently contended that the Tribunal
has failed to consider that the claimant is a Police Constable
and he was earning a sum Rs.18,500/- (Rupees Eighteen
Thousand Five Hundred only) per month and he was looking
after his family. He contended that the Tribunal without
considering this aspect of the matter has dismissed the claim
petition.
Lastly, he submits that viewed from any angle the
rejection of the claim petition is unsustainable in law and the
appeal may be admitted.
Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant
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 rejecting the claim petition.
6. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require
reiteration. Suffice it to note that the alleged accident occurred
on the 21st day of July 2012. However, the claimant's wife
made a complaint on the 11th day of August 2012. There is a
delay in making a complaint.
NC: 2024:KHC:7853
7. An attempt was made on behalf of the claimant that
due to the accident, he sustained loss both physically and
financially; his daughter was unwell; his wife Anusuya was
taking care of his daughter, hence there is a delay in making a
complaint. In this Court also, he has adhered to the said
contention. The reasons accorded for the delay in making a
complaint cannot be accepted.
To prove the actionable negligence, the claimant
examined himself as PW1. He has furnished the Wound
Certificate and the same is marked as Ex.P5. It is pivotal to
note that in the Wound Certificate, the date of the accident is
mentioned as 21.02.2012 and it is clear from the said
document that the particulars were given by the claimant
himself. It is the specific case of the claimant that the accident
occurred on 21.07.2012. Furthermore, Ex.P.5 the Wound
Certificate is an admitted document. However, the Claimant
has failed to give clarification about the difference in the date of
the accident. The Tribunal extenso referred to the material on
record and concluded that the Claimant has failed to prove that
the alleged accident occurred on account of the rash and
negligent riding of the motorcycle by the second respondent. In
NC: 2024:KHC:7853
my view, the conclusion so arrived at by the Tribunal is just
and proper. I find no reason to interfere with the judgment.
The appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly it is liable to be
dismissed at the stage of admission.
8. Resultantly, the Miscellaneous First Appeal is
dismissed at the stage of admission itself.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MRP
