Karnataka High Court
N Manjunath vs Nagaraju A M on 6 March, 2024
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:9505
MFA No. 4956 of 2016
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.4956 OF 2016(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
N.MANJUNATH
S/O NANJUNDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
RESIDING AT ANKANAHALLI,
BANNIKUPPE POST,
KAILANCHA HOBLI,
RAMANAGARA TALUK
AND DISTRICT-562 159.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJA.L., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. NAGARAJU.A.M.
S/O LATE MALLEGOWDA,
Digitally signed by
THEJASKUMAR N AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
Location: HIGH RESIDING AT ANIGERE VILLAGE,
COURT OF CHANNAPATNA TALUK-56125,
KARNATAKA
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
2. BAJAJ ALLIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
GROUND FLOOR, TBR TOWER,
I CROSS ROAD, NEW MISSION ROAD,
JAIN COLLEGE,
NEAR BENGALURU STOCK EXCHANGE,
BENGALURU-560 027.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.T.P.VIVEKANANDA., ADVOCATE F0R R1;
SRI. B.PRADEEP., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:9505
MFA No. 4956 of 2016
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 15.04.2015
PASSED IN MVC NO.324/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, ADDITIONAL MACT, CHANNAPATTANA,
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Sri.Raja.L., learned counsel for the appellant,
Sri.T.P.Vivekananda., learned counsel for respondent No.1 and
Sri.B.Pradeep., 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 19th day of
April 2011 at about 6:45 pm., when he and his friend Murali
were going in Bajaj Pulsar bearing Registration No.KA-42-H-
NC: 2024:KHC:9505
3424 towards Mathikere Village on B.M.Road from Channapatna
near Mathikere, a Honda Shine vehicle bearing Registration
No.KA-02-H-7763 came in a rash and negligent manner under
the influence of alcohol and hit against their vehicle. Due to the
impact, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. He was shifted
to Government Hospital, Channapatna. Later he was taken to
B.G.S Hospital, Bengaluru for better treatment and took
treatment as an in-patient for about one month. Contending
that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of
the Honda Shine motorbike, the claimant filed claim petition
seeking compensation.
In response to the notice, respondents appeared through
their counsel and filed objections and denied petition
averments. Among other grounds they prayed for dismissal of
the petition.
Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed Issues
and additional issues, parties led evidence and marked the
documents. The Tribunal vide Judgment dated:15.04.2015
partly allowed the petition and the first respondent Owner of
the offending vehicle was directed to pay compensation of
NC: 2024:KHC:9505
Rs.2,28,500/- (Rupees Two Lakh Twenty Eight Thousand Five
Hundred only) to the claimant. It is this Judgment that is called
into question in this appeal on several grounds as set-out in the
memorandum of appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant in presenting his
arguments strenuously urged that the Tribunal has totally erred
in fixing the liability on the owner and exonerating the
Insurance Company solely on the ground that it is a drunk
driving case. He argued by saying that there is nothing on
record to show that the rider of the motorbike i.e., Honda Shine
was drunk at the time of accident. Counsel therefore, submits
that the first respondent may be exonerated from the liability
and the Insurance company may be held liable to pay the
compensation. Counsel therefore, submits that appropriate
order may be passed.
By way of reply to this contention, learned counsel for
respondents 1 and 2 justified the Judgment and award of the
Tribunal. They submit that the appeal is devoid of merits and
the same may be dismissed.
NC: 2024:KHC:9505
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 the
Tribunal is justified in fixing the liability on the rider/ owner of
the offending vehicle on the ground that it is a drunk driving
case?
7. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require
reiteration. The issue revolves around drunk driving case. The
claimant contended that the rider of Honda Shine motorbike
had consumed alcohol while riding the motorbike as on the date
of accident. However, the alleged consumption of alcohol by the
rider of the Honda Shine motorbike was not established by the
aid of breath analyzer. In the absence of the test, it is hard to
believe that the rider/ owner of the Honda Shine motorbike had
consumed alcohol. This aspect of the matter has been
overlooked by the Tribunal. Hence, fixing the liability to pay the
compensation on the first respondent is unsustainable in law.
For the reasons the rider/ owner of the offending vehicle
is exonerated from the liability to pay compensation.
NC: 2024:KHC:9505
Admittedly, the offending vehicle was insured with second
respondent Insurance Company. In view of exoneration of
liability on the rider/ owner of the offending vehicle, the
Insurance Company is directed to satisfy the award of the
Tribunal within four weeks from the date of receipt of the
certified copy of this Judgment.
8. For the reasons stated above, the Judgment
dated:15.04.2015 passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge &
JMFC, MACT, Channapatna in M.V.C.No.324/2012 in so far as
fixing the liability on the rider/ owner of the offending vehicle is
liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, it is set-aside.
9. Resultantly, the Miscellaneous First Appeal is
allowed.
10. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant submits
that pursuant to the interim order dated:22.07.2016, the
appellant has deposited a sum of Rs.43,500/- (Rupees Forty
Three Thousand Five Hundred only) vide cheque bearing
No.018820 dated:23.09.2016. Hence, he submits that the
amount in deposit may be refunded to the appellant.
NC: 2024:KHC:9505
The oral submission made by learned counsel for the
appellant is placed on record.
The registry concerned is directed to transmit/ the
amount in deposit in favor of the appellant on proper
identification.
Sd/-
JUDGE
TKN
