Karnataka High Court
M/S Sbi General Insurance Company Ltd vs Smt Jayamma on 26 February, 2024
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:7851
MFA No. 3680 of 2018
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.3680 OF 2018(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
M/S SBI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
NO.3/1, GROUND FLOOR, RUKMINI TOWERS,
NEAR SWATHI HOTEL, PLATFORM ROAD,
SESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU - 560 020.
REPRESENTED BY MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.C.R.RAVISHANKAR., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.RAVI.S.SAMPRATHI., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. JAI KUMAR S
S/O. SUNDAR RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.36/2, 5TH MAIN,
14TH CROSS, CHOWDAPPA LAYOUT,
Digitally signed by
BAPUJI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560026.
THEJASKUMAR N
Location: HIGH 2. M/S. KPS LOGISTIC SOLUTIONS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA SY. NO.32/1, AECS LAYOUT,
A BLOCK, SINGASANDRA,
BANGALORE - 560 068.
REPRESENTED BY MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.GIRISH., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 - DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED:09.03.2018 PASSED BY THE
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:7851
MFA No. 3680 of 2018
MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNALS, BENGALURU
IN MVC NO.2036/2014.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR
FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Sri.C.R.Ravishankar., learned counsel on behalf of
Sri.Ravi S.Samprathi., for the appellant and Sri.Girish., learned
counsel for respondent No.1 have appeared in person.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be
referred to as per their status and rankings before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts are these:
The claimant Mr.Jai Kumar.S., contended that on
21.07.2013 at about 6:15 a.m., he was traveling in his Eco Car
bearing No.KA-41-Z-1092 with his friends from Bengaluru to
Sri Shiradi Sai Baba Temple, Shiradi. At that time, a lorry
bearing registration No.KA-51-B-1885 being driven by its driver
while overtaking other vehicles came in rash and negligent
manner and hit against his car. Due to the impact, he sustained
grievance injuries all over the body. Immediately, he was
shifted to District Hospital, Dharwad and he has taken
NC: 2024:KHC:7851
treatment from 21.07.2013 to 22.07.2013. Thereafter, he was
shifted to KIMS Hospital, Bengaluru, wherein he was treated as
an in-patient from 23.07.2013 to 01.08.2013. During the
course of treatment, X-rays were taken which revealed
comminuted fracture upper end of shaft of left femur and
underwent ORIF with wiring and relon nail for left femur.
Contending that the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the lorry, he has filed the Claim Petition
seeking compensation.
After issuance of the summons, the first respondent
remained absent and it was placed Ex-parte. The second
respondent appeared through its counsel and filed objections.
The second respondent filed objections and admitted the
issuance of policy in favor of the first respondent in respect of
Lorry bearing No.KA-51-B-1885 and liability is subject to the
terms and conditions of the policy. Among other grounds, it
prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed
Issues. The parties led evidence and got marked the
documents. The Tribunal vide Judgment dated:09.03.2018
NC: 2024:KHC:7851
partly allowed 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 appellant and respondent
No.1 have urged several contentions.
Sri.C.R.Ravishankar., learned counsel for the appellant in
presenting his arguments strenuously urged that the Tribunal
has erred in concluding that there is a contributory negligence.
He argued by saying that the Tribunal has not accorded any
reasons to come to the said conclusion. Counsel therefore,
submits that the matter requires a remand.
By way of reply to this contention, learned counsel
Sri.Girish., for respondent No.1 justified the Judgment and
award of the Tribunal.
Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective
parties and perused the appeal papers and also the records
with utmost care.
NC: 2024:KHC:7851
5. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require
reiteration. Suffice it to note that the accident is not in dispute
and issuance of the policy is also not in dispute.
6. The issue revolves around the conclusion arrived at
by the Tribunal regarding Contributory Negligence. A perusal of
the Judgment reveals that the Tribunal except for saying that
the claimant sustained injuries because of accident and there is
no dispute between the parties, has concluded that there is a
contributory negligence. The Tribunal has not accorded any
reasons to hold that there is a contributory negligence. This is
unsustainable in law. To come to a conclusion that there is a
Contributory Negligence, the Tribunal must assign reasons. This
has not been done so. Therefore, in my view, the matter
requires a remand. The finding regarding contributory
negligence is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, it is set-aside.
Learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No.1
jointly and fairly submits that they are not disputing the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
The oral submission made by learned counsel for the
respective parties is placed on record. The compensation
NC: 2024:KHC:7851
awarded by the Tribunal remains intact. However, the matter is
remanded to the Tribunal only to a limited extent to give a
reason and finding about the Contributory Negligence. Needless
to observe that the parties are at liberty to lead evidence only
to the extent of Contributory Negligence. Since the parties are
represented by their respective counsel, they are directed to
appear before the Tribunal on 20.03.2024 without awaiting
further notice.
7. Resultantly, the Miscellaneous First Appeal is
allowed and remanded.
8. In view of disposal of the appeal, the office is
directed to transmit the amount in deposit and the entire
records to the Tribunal forthwith. The Tribunal is directed to
deposit the entire amount in Nationalized bank.
Sd/-
JUDGE
TKN
