Karnataka High Court
Gurumurthy vs Shanth Kumar H.S on 6 March, 2024
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:9601
MFA No. 4600 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.4600 OF 2015(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
GURUMURTHY,
S/O YALLABOVI
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/O KAREHALLI, VADDARAHATTI VILLAGE,
VITTALAPURA, SHIVANI HOBLI,
TARIKERE TALUK.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MAHESH.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHANTH KUMAR H.S.
S/O SHIVALINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
DRIVER OF BUS BEARING NO.KA-18, 8739,
R/O BIDARAKERE, HOLALKERE TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 526.
Digitally signed by
THEJASKUMAR N
Location: HIGH 2. C MANOJ,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA S/O DR.CHANDRASHEKARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
SIDDARAMESHWARA MOTOR SERVICE,
OWNER OF BUS BEARING NO.KA-18, 8739,
R/O BH ROAD, KADUR - 577 548.
3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
P B NO.114, CRESCENT COURT,
K M ROAD, CHIKMAGALUR,
INSURER OF BUS NO.KA-18, 8739,
R/O BH ROAD, KADUR.
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:9601
MFA No. 4600 of 2015
(R1-AGAINST APPEAL DISMISSED V/O DATED: 16.07.2021;
R2-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
BY SRI. JAGADISH., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.P.B.RAJU., ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:22.04.2015
PASSED IN MVC NO.41/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE & PRINCIPAL JMFC, TARIKERE.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Jagadish.,
learned counsel on behalf of Sri.P.B.Raju., for respondent No.3
have appeared in person.
2. Notice to the respondents was ordered on
21.07.2015. A perusal of the office note depicts that the second
respondent is served and unrepresented. He has neither
engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as
party in person.
3. Though the appeal is listed today for admission,
with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, it
is heard finally.
NC: 2024:KHC:9601
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be
referred to as per their status and rankings before the Tribunal.
5. It is the case of the claimant that on the 12th day of
April 2007 at about 09:30 p.m., near Cheeranahalli Village,
Tarikere Taluk, he was in the bus bearing Reg. No.KA-18/8739
a passenger going, at that time the first respondent drove the
bus in a rash and negligent manner. Due to which the bus door
touched the left leg of the claimant and he was thrown out of
the bus and he sustained injuries on left leg, right hand and
some other parts of the body. He was taken to Government
Hospital, Tarikere in a hired vehicle where the Doctor gave first
aid treatment. The Doctor referred the claimant for further
treatment. As such he was taken to Chitradurga in hired vehicle
and admitted in Basaveshwara Medical College Hospital and
Research Centre where he took treatment as in-patient. During
the treatment, x-rays were taken and CT scan was done. The
claimant was subjected to many tests. The claimant sustained
fracture of shaft middle 1/3 left tibia and underwent Orif with
interlocking nail. The claimant was under treatment and rest
upto March 2010. During March 2010 interlocking and nails
were removed. It is said that the injuries are grievous in
NC: 2024:KHC:9601
nature. Contending that he has suffered lot of pain and mental
agony, he failed the claim petition.
In response to the notice, respondents 1 & 3 appeared
through their respective counsel and field their separate
objections. The second respondent did not appear and he
placed ex-parte. The first and third respondents have filed
written statement and denied the averments of the claim
petition and urged several contentions. 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:22.04.2015 dismissed the claim
petition. It is this Judgment that is called into question in this
appeal on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of
appeal.
6. 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. Counsel argued by saying
NC: 2024:KHC:9601
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.
7. The point that requires consideration is whether the
rejection of the claim petition is just and proper?
8. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require
reiteration. The claimant contended that he was traveling in the
bus as a passenger and was thrown out of the bus. Hence, he
sustained injuries. Suffice it to note that the alleged accident
appears to have occurred on the 12th day of April 2007.
However, the claim petition is filed after a lapse of almost five
years i.e., on 29th day of March 2012. The Investigation Officer
has also submitted the B-report. There is a delay in filing the
claim petition. The Tribunal extenso referred to the material on
record and concluded that there is a delay in filing the claim
NC: 2024:KHC:9601
petition and also held that the claimant has failed to prove that
the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of
the bus driver and therefore, held that the claimant is not
entitled for any compensation. 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.
9. Resultantly, the Miscellaneous First Appeal is
rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MRP
