Karnataka High Court
Smt Nagaveni vs H.D.Chandrappa on 28 February, 2024
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:8252
MFA No. 6061 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6061 OF 2016(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SMT. NAGAVENI
W/O H.D.CHANDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
JUNIOR WOMEN HEALTH ASSISTANT,
R/O MANDAGATTA VILLAGE,
SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 201.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M.V.MAHESHWARAPPA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. H.D.CHANDRAPPA,
S/O DUGGAPPA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
OWNER AND RIDER OF
MOTORCYCLE NO.KA-14/EB-4674,
Digitally signed by R/O MANDAGATTA VILLAGE,
THEJASKUMAR N SHIVAMOGGA,
Location: HIGH TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 201.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
M/S ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE, GARDEN AREA,
SHIVAMOGGA-577 201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. UMESHA MURTHY.J.M., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. P.B.RAJU., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:8252
MFA No. 6061 of 2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 25.06.2016,
PASSED IN MVC NO.1112/2013, ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT-8,
SHIVAMOGGA, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS, COMING ON
FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Sri.M.V.Maheshwarappa., learned counsel for the
appellant, Sri.Umesh Murthy.J.M., learned counsel for
respondent No.1 and Sri.P.B.Raju., learned counsel for
respondent No.2 have appeared in person.
2. Though the appeal is listed today for admission,
with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, it
is heard finally.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be
referred to as per their status and rankings before the Tribunal.
4. It is the case of the claimant that on the 4th day of
May, 2013 at about 9:30 am., she along with her husband were
heading towards Adagadi Village in the motorcycle bearing
Reg.No.KA-14/EB-4674 that belonged to her husband on her
NC: 2024:KHC:8252
official work. It is said that while returning, at about 01:20 pm.,
the first respondent rode his motorcycle in a rash and negligent
manner, consequent to which, she fell down on the right side of
the road near Nagara approach road. It is contended that she
being a pillion rider fell down and sustained severe fracture
injuries. She was taken to Mc. Gann Hospital, Shivamogga and
on the advice of the doctor, she was taken to KMC Hospital,
Manipal. It is said that her facture site was operated and
implants were inserted and she remained as in-patient for a
period of 15 days. It is also said that after the discharge, she
took treatment as out-patient. Contending that the accident
occurred due to the negligence of the first respondent, she filed
a claim petition seeking compensation.
In response to the notice, the first respondent remained
absent and hence he was placed ex-parte. The second
respondent - Insurance Company appeared through its counsel
and filed objections and denied the averments made in the
claim petition. However, it admitted that the offending vehicle
was insured and the policy was in force as on the date of the
accident and the liability is subject to the terms and conditions
NC: 2024:KHC:8252
of the policy. Among other grounds it prayed for dismissal of
the petition.
Based on the above pleadings the Tribunal framed Issues.
The claimant examined herself as PW1 and got marked
documents. Dr.Monappa Naik., was examined as CW1 and got
marked the documents. The respondents did not adduce any
oral evidence, but got marked documents as Exs.R.1 & 2. The
Tribunal vide Judgment and award dated:25.06.2016 dismissed
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.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant and respondent
No.2 have urged several contentions. Heard, the contentions
urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the
appeal papers and the records with utmost care.
6. The point that requires consideration is whether the
Tribunal is justified in dismissing the claim petition?
7. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require
reiteration. The issue revolves around the misreading of wound
certificate by the Tribunal. The Tribunal referred to the wound
NC: 2024:KHC:8252
certificate (Ex.P.10) and concluded that it is a case of self-fall
and consequently, rejected the claim petition. This is incorrect.
The reason is apparent. In my view, the Tribunal has misread
the contents of the Wound Certificate. The Wound Certificate
was marked as Ex.P.10. I have perused the same with utmost
care. The relevant portion of the Wound Certificate reads as
under:
"..... alleged H/o RTA at Mandagatta, Ayanur
self fall from bike, Pt. Pillion on bike."
A perusal of the same reveals that the claimant was a
pillion rider. Hence, it can be safely concluded that it is not a
case of self-fall. Therefore, the rejection of the claim petition on
the ground that it is a self-fall is liable to be set-aside. The
matter requires a remand.
8. Accordingly, the Judgment dated:25.06.2016
passed by the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. Motor
Accident Claim Tribunal-8, Shivamogga is set-aside. The matter
is remanded to the Tribunal.
NC: 2024:KHC:8252
Since the parties are represented by their respective
counsel, they are directed to appear before the Tribunal on
26.03.2024 without awaiting further notice.
9. Resultantly, the Miscellaneous First Appeal is
allowed and remanded.
The Registry concerned is directed to transmit the entire
records to the Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
TKN
