Karnataka High Court
Smt Sharanamma W/O Maheshraddi @ Mahesh ... vs Smt Sumitra W/O Vasant Yaligar on 9 January, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:475
MFA No. 22822 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.22822 OF 2011 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
SHARANAMMA
W/O. MAHESHRADDI @ MAHESH MATTER,
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: AGRI AND HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: BILASANOOR, TAL: HARIHAR.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.L. LINGANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. HARISH S.MAIGUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. SUMITRA W/O. VASANT YALIGAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSE HOLD,
R/O: KARUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
ENKAY COMPLEX, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI.
3. SMT. NIRMALAMMA W/O. LAXMAPPA MATTER,
Digitally
signed by AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRI,
BHARATHI
BHARATHI HM R/O: BILASANOOR, TAL: HARIHAR.
HM Date:
2024.01.27
10:41:01 4. SRI. LAXMAPPA S/O. TIPPANNA MATTER,
+0530
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRI,
R/O: BILASANOOR, TAL: HARIHAR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PADMAJA TADAPATRI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1, R3, R4 SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173 (1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 10-11-2010 PASSED IN MVC NO.659/2006 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT RANEBENNUR,
DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 166 OF MV ACT.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:475
MFA No. 22822 of 2011
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.S.L.Linganagoudar on behalf of Sri. Harish
S.Maigur and Smt. Padmaja Tadapatri for learned counsel
Sri.K.L.Patil for respondent No.2.
2. Unsuccessful claimant has preferred this appeal
challenging the dismissal of the claim petition in MVC
No.659/2006 dated 10.11.2010 on the file of Fast Track
Judge, Ranebennur.
3. The brief facts which are utmost necessary for
disposal of the appeal are as under:
3.1 A Claim petition came to be filed under Section 163-A
of the Motor vehicles Act contending that the claimants are
wife, daughter and parents of the deceased Mahesh raddi,
contending that Mahesh raddi died in road traffic accident
on 16.02.2006 at about 7.30 p.m. by unknown vehicle at
first instance.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:475
3.2 Later on, after two years, claimants contended that
there was involvement of tractor bearing No.MEU-8146
and Maruthi van bearing No.KA-35/M-1224 in the said
road traffic accident.
3.2 The claim petition was resisted by filing necessary
written statement. The tribunal after raising necessary
issues recorded the evidence of claimant and the owner of
the alleged offending vehicle and on appreciating oral and
documentary evidence on record in cumulative manner,
recorded the categorical finding that involvement of tractor
Maruthi van bearing No.KA-35/M-1224 in the alleged road
traffic accident is not properly established by the claimants
and dismissed the claim petition.
4. Aggrieved by the said dismissal orders, claimants are
in appeal.
5. Sri.S.L.Linganagoudar, counsel appearing on behalf
of Sri.Harish S. Maigur, reiterating the grounds urged in
the appeal memorandum vehemently contended that the
dependants were unable to trace the vehicle immediately
NC: 2024:KHC-D:475
after the accident. But, after thorough investigation, they
came to know that Maruthi van bearing No.KA-35M-1224
was involved in the accident and Mahesh raddi lost his life.
Therefore, claimants were obliged to file the claim petition
under Section 163A of the MV Act and the same has not
been properly appreciated by the learned judge in the trial
court and sought for allowing the appeal.
6. Per contra, Smt.Padmja Tadapatri, counsel
representing insurance company of the Maruthi van
bearing No.KA-35/M-1224 which is allegedly involved in
the accident, contended that the material evidence on
record clearly established that the number plate that has
been found in the place of accident did not tally with the
number plate of the Maruthi van and therefore, tribunal
has rightly dismissed the claim petition and sought for
dismissal of the appeal.
7. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, this
court has perused the material on record meticulously.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:475
8. On such perusal of the material on record, the
following points would arise for consideration.
1) Whether the claimants have established that the
Mahesh raddi died in the road traffic accident
involving a Maruthi omni car bearing No.KA-35/M-
1224 which has hit the Mahesh raddi and did not
stop the vehicle on the spot?
2) If so, whether the claimants are entitled for
compensation and what is the quantum of
compensation?
3) Whether impugned judgment and award is
suffering from legal infirmity and perversity and
thus call for interference?
4) What order?
Reg. points No.1 to 3:
9. In the case on hand, the claimants have claimed that
Mahesh raddi was hit by an unknown vehicle at the first
instance and lost his life in a road traffic accident. But,
after two years, they contended that a Maruthi Omni van
bearing Reg.No.KA-35/M-1224 is the vehicle that hit
NC: 2024:KHC-D:475
Mahesh Raddi in the accident and a claim petition came to
be filed.
10. Police records namely FIR marked at Ex.P.1,
complaint at Ex.P.2, spot mahazar at Ex.P.3 and inquest
mahazar at Ex.P.5, postmortem report at Ex.P.6 would go
to show that registered number of vehicle which was
involved in hit and run was not mentioned in those
documents.
11. Further, after two years, the claimants have come up
with a theory that Omni vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-35/M-
1224 was involved in the accident. Spot mahazar marked
at Ex.P.3 does not contain that the number plate of the
Omni vehicle was found near the place of the accident. On
the contrary, the number plate that was found on the
place was in broken pieces and it only depicted one digit
No.5.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:475
12. Further, no eyewitness is examined to establish the
fact that Omni vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-35/M-1224 was
involved in the accident.
13. Under such circumstances, taking note of the fact
that the claim petition is filed under Section 163-A of the
Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal has recorded a categorical
finding that the claimants were not able to establish the
involvement of Omni vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-35/M-
1224 in the accident.
14. Accordingly, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the
claim petition.
15. Even after re-appreciation of the material evidence
placed on record, in the absence of cogent evidence placed
on record by the claimants, dismissal of the claim petition
by the Tribunal cannot be faulted with.
16. In view of the foregoing discussion, points No.1 to 3
are answered in negative.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:475
Reg. point No.4:
17. In view of findings on points No.1 to 3 as above,
following order is passed:
ORDER
i. Appeal is merit less and is hereby dismissed.
ii. No order as to cost.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HMB- Upto para 8
