Karnataka High Court
Jayaram S vs Prasad G on 6 March, 2024
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:9602
MFA No. 2769 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2769 OF 2015(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
JAYARAM.S
S/O SRIKANTAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/O 11TH MAIN ROAD,
2ND CROSS, KALAPPA BLOCK,
SRINAGARA.
BANGALORE - 560 050.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.MAHESH., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.HANUMANTHAPPA.A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. PRASAD.G
C/O PRASANNA.K.B,
NO.1238, 12TH MAIN ROAD,
Digitally signed by 2ND A CROSS, RAGHAVENDRA BLOCK,
THEJASKUMAR N NEAR CANARA BANK.
Location: HIGH BANGALORE.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA (RC OWNER OF THE CAR BEARING
REG NO.KA-02-AA-6263).
2. FUTURE GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
NO.1ST FLOOR, NO.47/1,
9TH A MAIN, 1ST STAGE,
INDIRANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 038.
...RESPONDENTS
(R1-APPEAL AGAINST DISMISSED V/O DATED: 09.07.2021;
BY SRI.RAVI.S.SAMPRATHI., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:9602
MFA No. 2769 of 2015
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:11.12.2014
PASSED IN MVC NO.4113/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XX
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT,
BANGALORE.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Sri.Mahesh., learned counsel on behalf of
Sri.Hanumanthappa.A., for the appellant and
Sri.Ravi.S.Samprathi., learned counsel for respondent No.2
have appeared in person.
2. Though the appeal is listed today for admission,
with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, it
is heard finally.
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 26th day of
January 2013 at about 11:30 a.m., he was proceeding in a TVS
Moped bearing Reg. No.KA-01-V-2689 as a pillion rider, on
NC: 2024:KHC:9602
Ramanjaneya Road, Near Maradi Subbaiah Kalyana Mantapa,
Hanumanthanagar, Bangalore. At that time, a car bearing Reg.
No.KA-02-AA-6263 came from the opposite direction and hit
against the claimants motor cycle. Due to the impact, he fell
down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body.
Immediately, he was shifted to Orthopedic Clinic,
Hanumanthanagar, Bangalore for first aid and later was shifted
to ESI Hospital, Rajajinagar, wherein he was treated as an in-
patient. Contenting that the accident occurred due to the rash
and negligent driving of the car, the claimant filed the claim
petition seeking compensation.
In response to the notice, the respondents appeared
through their respective counsel. The second respondent filed
written statement and denied the averments of the claim
petition. Among other grounds, they prayed for dismissal of the
claim petition.
Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed
Issues, parties led evidence and marked the documents. The
Tribunal vide Judgment dated:11.12.2014 dismissed the claim
petition. It is this Judgment that is called into question in this
NC: 2024:KHC:9602
appeal on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of
appeal.
5. Sri.Mahesh., learned counsel for the appellant in
presenting his arguments vehemently contended that the
Judgment and Award of the Tribunal is contrary to the law and
evidence on record and probabilities of the case. He argued by
saying that the Tribunal has erred in rejecting the claim
petition. Counsel therefore, submits that the matter requires a
remand.
By way of reply to this contention, learned counsel for the
Insurance Company justified the Judgment and award of the
Tribunal. He submits that the appeal is devoid of merits and the
same may be dismissed.
Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective
parties and perused the appeal papers with utmost care.
6. The point that requires consideration is whether the
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 alleged accident appears
NC: 2024:KHC:9602
to have occurred on the 26th day of January 2013. The claimant
was examined as PW1 and he admits that the first respondent
is the owner of the offending vehicle and he resides near his
house. However, for the best reasons known to him, the
claimant made a complaint after a lapse of thirty five days.
There is a delay in making a complaint. Taking note of the
same the Tribunal has concluded that it is not a genuine case.
The Tribunal extenso referred to the material on record and
concluded that the claimant had failed to file the complaint well
within the time and rejected the claim petition. In my view, the
conclusion so arrived at by the Tribunal is just and proper. I
find no reasons to interfere with the judgment.
For the reasons stated above, the appeal is devoid of
merits and it is liable to be rejected.
8. Resultantly, the Miscellaneous First Appeal is
rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MRP
