Karnataka High Court
Smt K Rathnamma vs The New India Assurance Co Ltd on 31 May, 2024
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:18651
MFA No. 1505 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 3604 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1505 OF 2015(MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3604 OF 2011
IN MFA NO.1505 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
SRI G.S. ACHAPPA @ ACHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
S/O SRINIVASAIAH,
RESIDING AT NO.240,
DODDA GUBBI VILLAGE,
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI-562 140.
BANGALORE EAST TALUK.
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed by (BY SRI. BHADRINATH.R, ADVOCATE)
BASAVARAJU
PAVITHRA
Location: High AND:
Court of Karnataka
1. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD
R.O.NO.28, UNITY BUILDING,
ANNEXE MISSION ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 027.
POLICY ISSUED BY ITS BRANCH
OFFICE AT NO.23/2,
TIFFEANY'S ANNEXE,
VITTAL MALLYA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:18651
MFA No. 1505 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 3604 of 2011
2. SMT. K. RATHNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
W/O. VENKATESHA REDDY,
RESIDING AT DODDAGUBBI VILLAGE & POST,
BIDAREHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE 562 140.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.SURYANARAYANA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI.SHRIPAD V SHASTRI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.11.2010 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1700/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT-7, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BANGALORE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1,14,000/-
WITH INTEREST @6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
THE DATE OF REALIZATION.
IN MFA NO.3604 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
SMT. K. RATHNAMMA
W/O. VENKATESHA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
RESIDING AT DODDAGUBBI VILLAGE
AND POST, BIDAREHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE 562 140.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHRIPAD V SHASTRI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD
R.O.NO.28, UNITY BUILDING,
ANNEXE MISSION ROAD,
BANGALORE-27.
BY ITS MANAGER
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:18651
MFA No. 1505 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 3604 of 2011
2. SRI. ACHAPPA
S/O SRINIVASAIAH, MAJOR,
R/AT NO.200,
DODDAGUBBI POST,
VILLAGE, BANGALORE.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.SURYANARAYANA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. R.BHADRINATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.11.2010 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1700/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT-7,
BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
MFA No.1505/2015 is filed by the owner of the offending
vehicle challenging the judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal on the ground of liability.
2. MFA No.3604/2011 is filed by the claimant seeking
enhancement of compensation.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before
the Tribunal.
NC: 2024:KHC:18651
4. It is the case of the claimant that on 03.07.2008 at
about 7.00 p.m., the claimant was standing on the extreme left
side of the road in front of her house which is situated at
Doddagubbi, K.R.Puram taluk and at that time, one Mahindra
Jeep bearing registration No.KA-02-N-1045 came in a rash and
negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the
claimant. Due to which, the claimant sustained grievance
injuries. Therefore, she filed claim petition seeking
compensation.
5. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of
Rs.1,14,000/-with interest at the rate of 6% per annum holding
that the owner of the offending vehicle is liable to satisfy the
compensation.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant, who is the owner
of the offending vehicle in MFA No.1505/2015, submits that the
owner of the offending vehicle is respondent No.2 before the
Tribunal and he was represented by his advocate and
thereafter, the said advocate has filed memo for retirement.
The Tribunal permitted the advocate to retire from the case but
has not issued Court notice to respondent No.2-owner. Hence,
NC: 2024:KHC:18651
owner being respondent No.2 before the Tribunal is deprived of
leading evidence. He further submits that respondent No.2 has
disputed the alleged accident itself. Therefore, respondent No.2
wants to lead evidence. Hence, prays to remand the case to the
Tribunal.
7. Heard arguments of learned counsel for both the
parties and perused the records.
8. The appellant in MFA No.1505/2015 is respondent
No.2 before the Tribunal and he was represented by the
advocate. However, learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.2 before the Tribunal has filed memo for retirement. The
Tribunal, after taking on record the memo for retirement,
permitted the counsel to retire from the case. At the same
time, the Tribunal ought to have issued Court notice to
respondent No.2/owner but without issuing Court notice,
proceeded with the matter. Therefore, in this way, the owner-
respondent No.2 has deprived of leading evidence in the case
before the Tribunal. Further, respondent No.2, who being the
owner of the offending vehicle is disputing the alleged accident
itself and involvement of the offending vehicle in the said
NC: 2024:KHC:18651
accident. When this being the question raised, the Tribunal has
erred in proceeding with the matter without issuing Court
notice to respondent No.2-owner of the offending vehicle. This
is nothing but violation of principles of natural justice so far as
not hearing respondent No.2-owner of the offending vehicle.
Therefore, the case requires to be remanded to the Tribunal for
fresh consideration. Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeals are allowed.
ii) The impugned judgment and award dated
11.11.2010 passed by the Tribunal in MVC
No.1700/2009 is hereby set aside.
iii) The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal
for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
iv) Respondent No.2-owner of the offending
vehicle before the Tribunal shall appear before
the Tribunal on 04.07.2024 without awaiting
notice by the Tribunal.
v) The Tribunal is directed to issue notice to the
claimant and to dispose of the case within nine
months from 04.07.2024.
NC: 2024:KHC:18651
vi) The amount deposited by the owner of the
offending vehicle, in these appeals, shall be
refunded to him.
vii) All contentions are left open. Parties are
permitted to lead additional evidence, if they
so desire.
Sd/-
JUDGE
VM
