Karnataka High Court
Mr Santhosha Kotha vs Herald Quadras on 12 January, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:1806
MFA No. 6954 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 6952 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6954 OF 2013 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6952 OF 2013 (MV)
IN MFA NO. 6954/2013
BETWEEN:
MR. RONY D'SOUZA,
S/O LATE MICHEL D'SOUZA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/O PIUS NAGAR CHURCH,
HANGALUR, KUNDAPURA TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 201.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MAHESH KIRAN SHETTY S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. HERALD QUADRAS,
Digitally
signed by S/O WILLIAM QUADRAS,
BHARATHI S
Location: AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
HIGH COURT
OF R/O "ARUN", KODI ROAD, HALAVALLI,
KARNATAKA
KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI - 576 201.
2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE: KANCHAN TOWERS,
N.H. 17, KUNDAPURA, UDUPI - 576 201,
REPRESENTED BY ITS: BRANCH MANAGER
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAVISH BENNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 - SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:1806
MFA No. 6954 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 6952 of 2013
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.6.2012 PASSED IN MVC
NO.201/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, KUNDAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO. 6952/2013
BETWEEN:
MR. SANTHOSHA KOTHA,
S/O ALEX KOTHA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/O "PRIYA HOUSE", CHURCH ROAD,
HANGALUR, KUNDAPURA TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 201.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MAHESH KIRAN S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. HERALD QUADRAS,
S/O WILLIAM QUADRAS,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/O "ARUN", KODI ROAD, HALAVALLI,
KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI - 576 201.
2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE: KANCHAN TOWERS,
N.H. 17, KUNDAPURA, UDUPI - 576 201,
REPRESENTED BY ITS: BRANCH MANAGER
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAVISH BENNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 - SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.6.2012 PASSED IN MVC
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:1806
MFA No. 6954 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 6952 of 2013
NO.200/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, KUNDAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Both the appeals are filed challenging the judgment and
award dated 29.06.2012 wherein a common judgment has
been passed in MVC Nos.200/2010 and 201/2010 by the Senior
Civil Judge and Member, Additional MACT, Kundapura
(hereinafter referred to as Tribunal). Hence, both the appeals
are taken up for consideration together.
2. It is the case of the claimant in M.V.C.No.200/2010
who is the appellant in MFA No.6952/2013, that on 26.11.2009,
when he was walking on the side of the road, a TVS Solo
bearing registration No.KA-20-U/9671 belonging to the first
respondent - owner came with high speed, in a rash and
negligent manner and hit him resulting in the accident in
question wherein he suffered grievous injuries.
NC: 2024:KHC:1806
3. It is the case of the claimant in MVC No.201/2010,
who is the appellant in MFA No.6954/2013 that on 26.11.2009,
when he was proceeding as a pillion rider in TVS Solo bearing
registration No.KA-20-U/9671 being driven by its rider one
Richard Menezes, who drove the same with high speed in a
rash and negligent manner, and as a result, he lost control and
hit a pedestrian causing the accident in question wherein the
said claimant sustained injuries.
4. Claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in
the said accident the claim petitions were filed. The owner and
the insurer of the motorcycle were arrayed as respondent Nos.1
and 2 in both the claim petitions. The second respondent -
insurer entered appearance and contested the said proceedings
contending, interalia, that the claimant in MVC No.200/2010
was the rider of the motor cycle in the accident in question and
that the said Richard Menezes was not the rider of the motor
cycle. Since the said petitioner did not have a valid driving
license to ride the motor cycle at the time of the accident, the
petitioner created a false case in collusion with the Police
authorities and filed claim petitions to make illegal
NC: 2024:KHC:1806
gain. Various other contentions were also taken in the said
statement of objections.
5. The claimants in both the claim petitions were
examined as PW.1 in the respective petitions, the doctor was
examined as PW.2 in both the claim petitions. In MVC
No.200/2010, Richard Menezes was examined as RW.1 and his
driving license was marked as Ex.R.1. The Tribunal upon an
appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, recorded a
finding that the petition averments are not supported by the
evidence on record and that the petitions have failed to prove
the alleged accident as averred in the claim petition. That the
rider of the motor cycle did not have a valid and proper driving
license at the time of the accident. However, the Tribunal has
assessed the quantum of compensation and has directed the
first respondent - owner of the vehicle to pay the compensation
awarded. Being aggrieved, the claimants have filed the present
appeals.
6. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the
appellants - claimants in both the appeals as well as the
submission of the learned counsel for the second respondent -
NC: 2024:KHC:1806
insurer and perused the records including the records of the
Tribunal.
7. The question that arises for consideration is "whether
the finding recorded by the Tribunal is liable to be interfered
with?"
8. It is forthcoming that the Tribunal upon appreciation
of the oral and documentary evidence on record has noticed
that PW.1 in MVC No.200/2010 has denied that PW.1 and RW.1
are relatives and he stated that they had acquaintance with
each other. PW.1 in MVC No.201/2010 denied that they are
relatives and neighbours. However, in the complaint (Ex.P.2)
given by RW.1, it states that they are friends and that they
were travelling in the motor cycle. Further that RW.1 has
stated that he, the petitioner in MVC No.200/2010 and the first
respondent - owner of the vehicle are friends. Hence, the
testimony of the claimants in both the cases are contrary to the
testimony of RW.1.
9. The Tribunal has further noticed the spot of the
accident as per Ex.P.3 - spot panchanama and the testimony of
RW.1 and has recorded a finding that the evidence and the
NC: 2024:KHC:1806
findings do not corroborate with each other. Further, the
Tribunal has noticed that RW.1 has deposed that he had
admitted the injured to the hospital and he himself went to the
Police and informed regarding the accident. But the said
testimony of RW.1 is contrary to the testimony of PW.1 in MVC
No.201/2010 as well as the complaint - Ex.P.2.
10. Further, the Tribunal has noticed that as per the
contents of Ex.P.3 - spot panchanama, that the motor cycle
involved in the accident was parked in a nearby the compound
and there were scratch marks on the left side of the headlight
dome. But RW.1 has stated that the front side rod was bent
and right front side indicator was damaged. Hence, the
Tribunal has recorded a finding that the evidence of RW.1
regarding the damages to the motor cycle was contrary to the
damages shown in the spot mahazar.
11. It is forthcoming from the aforementioned that the
Tribunal after a detailed appreciation of the oral and
documentary evidence on record and after an elaborate
discussion on the said aspect of the matter has recorded a
finding that the petitioners have failed to prove the alleged
accident as averred in the petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:1806
12. Although the learned counsel for the appellant has
attempted to demonstrate that the findings are erroneous,
having regard to the various inconsistencies as has been
adequately appreciated by the Tribunal as has been noticed
hereinabove, the findings recorded by the Tribunal with regard
to the said aspect are just and proper and no interference is
warranted with the said findings in the present appeals.
13. It is forthcoming that, despite the Tribunal having
recorded a finding that the petitioners have failed to prove the
accident as alleged in the claim petition, it has proceeded to
assess the quantum of compensation and directed the first
respondent - owner of the vehicle to pay the compensation as
awarded. However, in the absence of any appeal filed by the
owner, the said aspect of the matter is not adjudicated upon.
14. In the view of the aforementioned, the appeals are
dismissed as being devoid of merit.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MEG
CT: BHK
