Karnataka High Court
B A Dinesh vs B A Ravikumar on 5 March, 2024
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:9251
MFA No. 598 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 598 OF 2013 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
KRISHNAKUMAR
S/O RANAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF KEMPEGOWDA ROAD,
BELUR TALUK-573 115.
HASSAN DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHARATH KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. CHETHAN.B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. B.A.RAVIKUMAR
S/O B.M.ANNEGOWDA,
MAJOR,
RESIDENT OF KEMPEGOWDA ROAD,
Digitally signed by BELUR TALUK-573 115.
THEJASKUMAR N HASSAN DISTRICT.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. THE MANAGER
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD
C NANJAPPA COMPLEX, SUBASH SQUARE
HASSAN-573201
...RESPONDENTS
(R1-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
BY SRI. Y.K.SHESHAGIRI RAO., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 16.11.2012
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:9251
MFA No. 598 of 2013
PASSED IN MVC NO.101/2011 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE & MACT, BELUR.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Sri.Sharath Kumar., learned counsel on behalf of
Sri.Chethan.B., for the appellant and Sri.Y.K.Sheshagiri Rao.,
learned counsel for respondent No.2 have appeared in person.
2. Notice to the respondents was ordered on
30.0.2013. A perusal of the office note depicts that the first
respondent is served and unrepresented. He has neither
engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as
party in person.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be
referred to as per their status and rankings before the Tribunal.
4. It is the case of the claimant that on the 27th day of
February 2011 at about 7:30 pm., he being the pillion rider and
Dinesh being the rider of the motorcycle bearing Registration
No.KA-13-K-3658 were proceeding in Belur-Halebidu road, near
Sompura border. At that time, a TVS Victor Motorcycle bearing
NC: 2024:KHC:9251
Registration No.KA-46-E-0030 came in a rash and negligent
manner and hit their vehicle. Due to the impact, the claimant
sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to
Belur Government Hospital for first aid treatment. Thereafter,
he was shifted to Government Hospital Hassan and
Chamarajendra Hospital and took treatment as an in-patient.
Contending that the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligence riding of the TVS Victor Motorcycle bearing
Registration No.KA-46-E-0030, the claimant filed claim petition
seeking compensation.
In response to the notice, the respondents appeared
through their counsel and filed separate objections. They
denied the petition averments and prayed for dismissal of the
petition. Among other grounds, they prayed for dismissal of the
petition.
Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed
Issues. The parties led evidence and marked the documents.
The Tribunal vide Judgment and Award dated:16.11.2012
rejected the petition. It is this Judgment that is called into
NC: 2024:KHC:9251
question in this appeal on several grounds as set-out in the
Memorandum of appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant and respondent
No.2 have urged several contentions. Heard, the contentions
urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the
appeal papers and also the records with utmost care.
6. The point that requires consideration is whether
rejection of the claim petition is just and proper?
7. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require
reiteration. Suffice it to note that the claimant has stated
before the Doctor that the rider of the motorcycle B.A.Dinesh
himself hit the cow and on that account, the accident occurred.
This is evident from Ex.R.10.
An attempt was made on behalf of the claimant that the
rider of the offending vehicle Mr.B.A.Ravi Kumar is his neighbor
and he did not stop the vehicle. In this Court also, he has
adhered to the said contention. The same cannot be accepted.
The reason is simple. In view of the fact that the rider - Dinesh
himself hit the cow and caused the accident, hence the
contention that the neighbor B.A.Ravi Kumar did not stop the
NC: 2024:KHC:9251
vehicle is satisfactorily hopeless. The Tribunal extenso referred
to the material on record and rightly rejected the claim petition.
I find no reasons to interfere with the Judgment and award of
the Tribunal.
For the reasons stated above, the appeal is devoid of
merits and the same is liable to be rejected.
8. Resultantly, the Miscellaneous First Appeal is
rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
TKN
