Karnataka High Court
Parashram S/O. Hanamant Ganachari vs Natu H Rathod on 9 January, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:466
MFA No. 24304 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.24304 OF 2011 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
PARASHRAM
S/O. HANAMANT GANACHARI,
AGE: ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCC: CENTERING,
WORK AND BAR BENDING NOW NILL,
R/O: GAVASIDDANAMADDI, ATHANI,
TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K. ANANDKUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. NATU H.RATHOD,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
ATHANI, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE, CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI
DIST: BELAGAVI.
Digitally
signed by ...RESPONDENTS
BHARATHI
BHARATHI H M
HM Date:
2024.01.23 (BY SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
16:35:28 SERVICE TO R1 HELD SUFFICIENT)
+0530
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE M.V.ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT
AND AWARD DATED 26-02-2011, PASSED IN MVC NO.554/2009 ON
THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-II AND
MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, BELAGAVI, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED
UNDER SECTION 166 OF MV ACT.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:466
MFA No. 24304 of 2011
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.K.Anandkumar, learned counsel for the
appellant and Sri.S.K.Kayakamath, learned counsel for the
respondent - Insurance Company.
2. Unsuccessful claimant is before this Court
challenging the validity of the judgment and award passed
in MVC No.554/2009 on the file of Additional Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Belagavi dated 26.02.2011.
3. The claimant laid a claim under Section 166 of
the Motor Vehicles Act in respect of the alleged road traffic
accident occurred on 17.03.2008 involving a motorcycle
bearing Reg.No.KA-23/V-851 when he was waiting for the
bus to go to Badachi from Athani.
4. According to claimant, when he was waiting for
the bus, the offending motorcycle hit him and he fell down
and became unconscious and two persons who were also
waiting for the bus, shifted him to the hospital and
thereafter he regained conscious and after eight days he
NC: 2024:KHC-D:466
lodged complaint with the police alleging negligence of
rider of motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-23/V-851 and thus
he laid a claim before the Tribunal seeking compensation.
5. The claim petition was resisted by the
Insurance Company by filing necessary written statement.
The Tribunal after raising necessary issues and considering
the oral and documentary evidence placed on record,
disbelieved the genesis of the claim made by the claimant
and dismissed the claim petition.
6. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimant is
before this Court.
7. Reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal
memorandum, Sri.K.Anandkumar learned counsel for the
appellant vehemently contended that the Tribunal grossly
erred in disbelieving the case of the claimant and
dismissing the claim petition resulting in miscarriage of
justice and sought for allowing the claim petition.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:466
8. He also pointed out that the statements of the
persons who shifted the injured to the hospital are very
much important to be considered and the same are
ignored by the Tribunal and therefore sought for allowing
the appeal.
9. Per contra, Sri.S.K.Kayakamath, learned
counsel representing the Insurance Company contended
that the material evidence placed on record by the
claimant is properly appreciated by the Tribunal in the
impugned judgment and on cumulative consideration of
the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the
Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition and
sought for dismissal of the petition.
10. In view of the rival contentions of the parties,
this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
11. On such perusal of the material on record, it is
seen that the injured was shifted to the hospital and
material evidence on record would go to show that he has
NC: 2024:KHC-D:466
suffered fractures and he has taken treatment. The
injuries sustained by the claimant are also on account of
the accident. Therefore, the moot question which is to be
decided is whether vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-23/V-851
was involved in the accident is properly proved by the
claimant by placing necessary evidence on record.
12. No doubt, there is a delay of eight days in filing
the complaint. There is evidence of Suresh Gadad and
Rafiq Hukkeri placed on record by examining them on
behalf of the claimant. However, a belated complaint was
filed. Material evidence on record would go to show that
there were damages caused to the vehicle bearing
Reg.No.KA-23/V-851 vide MVI report at Ex.P.4.
13. Therefore, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the claimant has sufficiently established that
he sustained accidental injuries and entitled for suitable
compensation by remitting the matter.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:466
14. At this juncture, Sri.K.Anandkumar submits that
instead of remanding the matter to the Tribunal, the
matter can be disposed of before this Court itself by
awarding reasonable compensation globally.
15. Sri.S.K.Kayakamath submits that since
involvement of vehicle is not established, payment of any
compensation would set wrong precedent and
unscrupulous claimants may take advantage of the same
and file such belated complaint and claim compensation.
16. Taking note of the relevant aspects of the
matter and the statements of Suresh Gadad and Rafiq
Hukkeri being available in the charge sheet though not
produced before the Court, as a peculiar case, awarding
reasonable compensation in order to avoid one more
round of trial by remanding the matter would meet the
ends of justice.
17. Taking note of these aspects of the matter,
instead of remanding the matter for fresh disposal in
NC: 2024:KHC-D:466
accordance with law, directing payment of compensation
in a sum of Rs.60,000/- globally would meet the ends of
justice.
18. In view of the foregoing discussion, following
order is passed:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) Impugned judgment and award passed by
the Tribunal is set aside.
(iii) The claim petition is allowed by granting
Rs.60,000/- as global compensation with
interest at 6% per annum from the date of
petition till realisation.
(iv) Insurance Company is granted four weeks
time to deposit the adjudged sum of
Rs.60,000/- with interest.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:466
(v) This order shall not be treated as precedent
and it is only passed in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case on hand.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SH
