The Manager vs M. Ranganatha
2024 Latest Caselaw 14857 Kant

Karnataka High Court

The Manager vs M. Ranganatha on 27 June, 2024

Author: Hemant Chandangoudar

Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar

                                                    -1-
                                                                NC: 2024:KHC:23941
                                                              MFA No. 5137 of 2019




                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                                 DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

                                                BEFORE
                           THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
                           MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5137 OF 2019 (MV-I)
                      BETWEEN:

                      THE MANAGER,
                      SHRIAM GIC LTD.,
                      TUMAKURU BRANCH,
                      MUDDAPPA COMPLEX,
                      SHIRAN ROAD, TUMAKURU - 572 101.
                      NOW REPRESENTED BY
                      THE BRANCH MANAGER,
                      SHRIRAM GIC LTD.,
                      NO.5/4, 3RD FLOOR, S.V. ARCADE,
                      BELEKALHALLI MAIN ROAD,
                      OPP. BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
                      LIMB POST, BANGALORE - 76.
                                                                      ...APPELLANT
                      (BY SRI. PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE)

                      AND:
Digitally signed by
R HEMALATHA
                      1.     M. RANGANATHA,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF                     S/O MUDDAPPA,
KARNATAKA                    AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
                             KORAMANGALA,
                             R/O DODDENAHALLI,
                             TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

                      2.     CHANNAKESHAVA N,
                             S/O NARENDRA KUMAR,
                             AGED 31 YEARS, R/AT H.NO.109,
                             3RD CROSS, JAVANAGONDANAHALLY,
                             HIRIYUR TALUK,
                             CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
                                                                   ...RESPONDENTS
                                    -2-
                                                 NC: 2024:KHC:23941
                                              MFA No. 5137 of 2019




(BY SRI.MALLAPPA S. NACHAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
    SRI.M.B.RYAKHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

      THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.02.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.
1130/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
AND MACT, TUMAKURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
RS.1,62,500/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE
OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

    THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                              JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award dated 26.02.2019 in MVC No.1130/2016 passed by the II Addl. District Judge and MACT, Tumakuru.

2. The claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act, seeking just and proper compensation for injuries sustained on 31.01.2016 in a road traffic accident. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, awarded total compensation of Rs.1,62,500/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition until actual realization. Taking exception to this, the insurance company is appealing, challenging the maintainability of the claim petition and the liability of the insurance company to pay compensation.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

NC: 2024:KHC:23941

4. The claimant alleged that he was proceeding on a motorcycle on 31.01.2016 when a Tata Ace vehicle, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and dashed against him. As a result, the claimant sustained a lacerated wound measuring 5*4 cm, a fracture of the left tibia, and injuries to other parts of his body.

5. The MLC register at Ex.R1 indicated overwriting of the vehicle involved in the accident, i.e., "Car" was struck out and "Tata Ace" was inserted. The author of the document, namely C.W.1/Chetan.A., stated that on the same date, the MLC register indicating the name of the offending vehicle was overwritten as 'Tata Ace' instead of 'Car'. He further admitted that prior to carrying out the correction, the information was sent to the jurisdictional police. The claimant was brought to the hospital, and the FIR was lodged four days after the date of the accident by one Kamaraju, the alleged eyewitness to the accident. The charge sheet has been filed against the driver of the Tata Ace vehicle.

6. In these circumstances, in the absence of cogent evidence that the accident was caused by the driver of the Tata Ace vehicle, the impugned judgment and award are not sustainable. The claimant was required to prove that he sustained accidental injuries due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Tata Ace vehicle by adducing the evidence of the alleged eyewitness to the accident.. Accordingly, I pass the following:

NC: 2024:KHC:23941

ORDER

i. Appeal is allowed.

ii. The impugned judgment and award dated 26.02.2019 passed by the II Addl. District Judge and MACT, Tumakuru is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for adjudicating the claim petition afresh, in accordance with law.

iii. The appellant is permitted to withdraw the statutory amount deposited before this Court and 50% of the compensation amount including the amount deposited before the Tribunal within four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

All contentions are kept open.

Sd/-

JUDGE

RKA