Karnataka High Court
Smt. Sakamma vs Chandrappa on 30 July, 2024
Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29966
MFA No. 4511 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4511 OF 2018 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SAKAMMA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
W/O CHANDRAPPA
R/O NAVILEHAL VILLAGE,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. CHIDAMBARA G S.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. CHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
S/O RUDRAPPA
Digitally signed by R/O NAVILEHAL VILLAGE,
HEMALATHA A
Location: HIGH CHANNAGIRI TALUK
COURT OF DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577
KARNATAKA
2. THE MANAGER
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY,
P B ROAD,
ABOVE NEAR BIG BAZAAR
KOTHARI MADHU TEXTILE,
DAVANAGERE-577 002 ...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29966
MFA No. 4511 of 2018
(BY SRI. B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2: NOTICE TO R1
SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED16.12.2017 PASSED IN MVC
NO.45/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT,
CHANNAGIRI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been
filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment
dated 16.12.2017 passed by the Senior Civil Judge &
MACT, Channagiri (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Tribunal') in MVC No.45/2016.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly
stated are that on 03.05.2015 when the claimant was
proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-
17/EK-9253 towards Davanagere, at that time, the rider of
NC: 2024:KHC:29966
the motorcycle rode the same in a rash and negligent
manner and when they came near a road hump, he lost
control and the claimant who was the pillion rider, fell
down on the road. As a result of the aforesaid accident,
the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was
hospitalized.
3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the
Act, seeking compensation. It was pleaded that she spent
significant amount towards medical expenses, conveyance
charges and other related costs. It was further pleaded
that the accident occurred solely on account of rash and
negligent riding of the motorcycle by its rider.
4. Upon service of notice, the respondent No.2
appeared through counsel and filed written statement
denying the averments made in the claim petition. The
respondent No.1, despite service of notice, did not appear
before the Tribunal and was placed ex-parte.
NC: 2024:KHC:29966
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the
Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter, recorded
the evidence. The claimant, in order to prove the case,
examined herself as PW-1, and got exhibited documents
namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P62. On behalf of the respondents,
one witness was examined as RW-1 and got exhibited
documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R2. The Claims Tribunal,
by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the
claimant failed to prove that the accident has occurred and
the claimant suffered injuries due to rash and negligent
riding of the offending vehicle. Accordingly, the Tribunal
dismissed the claim petition. Being aggrieved, the present
appeal has been filed.
6. The learned counsel for the claimant submitted that
the claim petition has been dismissed by the Tribunal only
on the ground of delay in lodging the complaint.
Immediately, after the accident, she was admitted to
SSIMS Sparsh Hospital, Davanagere. The wound
certificate is produced as Ex.P7. It is very clearly stated
NC: 2024:KHC:29966
that, on 03.05.2015, she has suffered head injury, she
was admitted to the hospital and she was discharged from
the hospital on 11.05.2015. Therefore, there is a delay in
lodging the complaint. This aspect has not been
considered by the Tribunal. Hence, he sought to allow the
appeal.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
Insurance Company submitted that the owner of the
offending vehicle is none other than the husband of the
claimant. The accident occurred on 03.05.2015 and the
complaint has been lodged after 43 days. Nothing
prevented the owner of the offending vehicle to lodge a
complaint. No proper explanation has been given for delay
in lodging the complaint after 43 days. Therefore, the
Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim petition. Hence, he
sought to dismiss the appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal and the
original records.
NC: 2024:KHC:29966
9. The case of the claimant is that on 03.05.2015 when
she was going on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-
17/EK-9253 towards Davanagere, at that time, the rider of
the motorcycle rode the same in a rash and negligent
manner and when they came near a road hump, he lost
control and the claimant who was the pillion rider, fell
down on the road and suffered injuries. As per the wound
certificate, it is very clear that she was admitted to SSIMS
Sparsh Hospital. As per the discharge summary, she was
discharged from the hospital on 11.05.2015. Since she
suffered head injury, there may be delay in lodging the
complaint. The Tribunal, without considering the
documents produced by the claimant, dismissed the claim
petition only on the ground of delay in lodging the
complaint. The same is contrary to the materials available
on record. Hence, the matter requires to be remitted back
to the Tribunal.
10. Accordingly, the following order is passed:
NC: 2024:KHC:29966
(i) The appeal is allowed.
(ii) The judgment and award dated 16.12.2017
passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.45/2016 is set aside.
(iii) The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to re-
consider the matter afresh.
(iv) All the contentions of the parties are kept open.
Sd/-
(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD)
JUDGE
CM
