Karnataka High Court
Nanjundaswamy vs Ayyappa on 4 July, 2024
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:25517
MFA No. 8905 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 8906 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8905 OF 2013 (MV)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8906 OF 2013(MV-I)
IN MFA NO. 8905 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
NANJUNDASWAMY
S/O BASAVANAIKA
21 YEARS,
R/O ELACHAGERE VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
NANJANAGUD TALUK - 571 301
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NAGARAJA R C, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
SUMITHRA R
Location: HIGH COURT AND:
OF KARNATAKA
1. AYYAPPA
S/O MARINAIKA
33 YEARS
R/O ECHAGUDLA VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
NANJANAGUD TALUK - 571 301
(DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE)
2. K S ANILKUMAR
S/O K S SIDDALINGASWAMY
39 YEARS
R/O KUDLAPURA VILLAGE
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:25517
MFA No. 8905 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 8906 of 2013
NANJANAGUD TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 301
( OWNER OF THE VEHICLE)
3. THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
1ST FLOOR, MYSORE TRADE CENTRE,
OPP: K S R T C BUS STAND
MYSORE - 570 001
REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D VIJAY KUMAR ADVOCATE FOR R3;
R1 AND R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED04.09.2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO.62/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC
AND MACT, AT NANJANGUD, DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO. 8906 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
BANGARANAIKA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
R/O KUGALURU VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
NANJANAGUD TALUK - 571 301.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NAGARAJA R C, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. AYYAPPA
S/O MARINAIKA
33 YEARS
R/O ECHAGUDLA VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
NANJANAGUD TALUK - 571 301
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:25517
MFA No. 8905 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 8906 of 2013
(DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE)
2. K S ANILKUMAR
S/O K S SIDDALINGASWAMY
39 YEARS
R/O KUDLAPURA VILLAGE
NANJANAGUD TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 301
( OWNER OF THE VEHICLE)
3. THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
1ST FLOOR, MYSORE TRADE CENTRE,
OPP: K S R T C BUS STAND
MYSORE - 570 001
REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ASHOK N PATIL ADVOCATE FOR R3;
R1 AND R2 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
------
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.09.2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO.63/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC
AND MACT, AT NANJANGUD, DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:25517
MFA No. 8905 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 8906 of 2013
JUDGMENT
MFA No.8905 of 2013 and MFA No.8906 of 2013 arise
out of the same accident and same parties. Therefore, both
are clubbed together and considered vide this common
judgment.
2. Parties in these appeals are referred by their
rankings as arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The claimants have filed these appeals being
aggrieved by the dismissal of their claim petitions, MVC
No.62 and 63 of 2012, passed by the Senior Civil Judge &
JMFC and MACT at Nanjangud vide judgment and award
dated 04.09.2013.
4. It is the case of claimants, Nanjundaswamy and
Bangarunayaka, rider and pillion rider of the vehicle TVS XL
bearing No.KA-09 EK 8396, that while they were so
proceeding in the aforesaid vehicle on 26.06.2012 towards
Elachagere from Kuguluru, at about 07.45 a.m. near
NC: 2024:KHC:25517
Kugaluru curve, driver of Toofan Trax vehicle bearing
No.KA-09 B-4635, drove the vehicle in a high speed and
dashed against the motor cycle of the claimants. As a
result, the claimants fell down and sustained injuries.
Hence, the claimants filed claim petitions which came to be
dismissed on the ground that in the MLC extract and case
sheet, history of accident is shown as 'self-fall' from the bike
and therefore, the Tribunal held that Toofan Trax vehicle
has no role in causing injuries to the claimants whereas, the
injuries sustained by the claimants are due to 'self-fall' by
the claimants from the motor cycle and therefore, dismissed
the claim petitions.
5. In the case sheet and MLC extract, it is shown as
self-fall. Therefore, on this evidence the Tribunal has
dismissed the claim petitions, whereas in the complaint, FIR
and charge sheet, it is mentioned as 'the Tempo Trax
vehicle dashed the vehicle of claimants'. It is also
evidenced by RW.1, driver of Tempo Trax, who has deposed
that the accident is between the Tempo Trax and the motor
NC: 2024:KHC:25517
cycle. Therefore, there is contrary evidence before the
Tribunal. Just because in the medical records it is
mentioned as 'self-fall' from the bike, that alone cannot be
considered for arriving at the conclusion for not awarding
compensation to them but under what circumstance it has
been informed to the authorities that the accident is a result
of 'self-fall' has to be considered. Another factor that is to
be considered is that at that time due to the injuries
sustained by the claimants, it is contended that they were in
unconscious condition. Therefore, 'whether it is a case of
self-fall from the bike or it is a motor vehicle accident', as
pleaded in the claim petitions, matter is required to be
remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration and to find
out whether it is a motor vehicle accident between two
vehicles i.e. the Tempo Trax and the motor cycle and
therefore, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal
in the claim petitions is liable to be set aside. Hence, I pass
the following order :
NC: 2024:KHC:25517
ORDER
1) The appeals are allowed;
2) The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in the claim
petitions MVC Nos.62 and 63 of 2012 passed by the Senior
Civil Judge & JMFC and MACT at Nanjangud vide judgment
and award dated 04.09.2013 is set aside;
3) Matter is remanded to the aforesaid Tribunal to consider the
claim petitions afresh on the aforesaid issue;
4) Parties shall appear before the aforesaid Tribunal on 6.8.2024
without excepting notice from the Tribunal.
5) Nine months time is granted from 6.8.2024 for disposal of the
claim petitions by the Tribunal.
6) It is made clear that in case the claimants succeed in
procuring judgment in their favour then, the claimants are
not entitled for interest from the date of impugned judgment
of the Tribunal i.e. 4.9.2023 till the date of pronouncing
judgment by the Tribunal after remand.
Sd/-
JUDGE
rs
