Karnataka High Court
Suresh K vs K Srinivas Kamath on 7 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:44953
MFA No. 6687 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6687 OF 2021(MV-DM)
BETWEEN:
SURESH K,
S/O RAMACHANDARA K,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 19-10-565/8,
FLAT NO. D -3, 3RD FLOOR,
PARVATHI ANANTHA APTS,
OLD KENT ROAD, BEHIND CHAITANYA HOTEL,
PANDESHWARA, MANGALURU,
D.K. DISTRICT - 575 001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. G. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by 1. K. SRINIVAS KAMATH,
AASEEFA PARVEEN
S/O LATE NARAYANA KAMATH,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF ADULT, R/AT 2-19/1585/9,
KARNATAKA SAGAR DARSHAN,
CHILIMBI HILL 1ST CROSS,
ASHOK NAGAR, MANGALURU,
D.K. DISTRICT - 575 006.
2. ROYAL SUNDARAM GEN. INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
CORPORATE OFFICE,
VISHRANTI MELARAM TOWERS,
NO.2/319, RAJIV GANDHI SALAT,
KORAPAKKAM, CHENNAI - 600 097,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:44953
MFA No. 6687 of 2021
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER
ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL
INSURANCE CO LTD., AURA,
THE PLACE, 3RD FLOOR,
CHILIMBI, CI-MANGALURU,
D.K. DISTRICT - 575 002.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C.R. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. K. SURYANARAYANA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.10.2021 PASSED IN MVC
NO. 880/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MACT, DAKSHINA KANNADA,
MANGALURU, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Upon hearing Sri.Ravishankar Shastry.G, learned counsel
for the appellant, the matter was ordered to be listed on this
day under the caption 'for dictating the judgment' and
accordingly the matter is listed. However, on this day Sri.
Ravishankar Shastry.G learned counsel for the appellant made
his further submission. Also heard Sri.C.R.Ravishankar learned
NC: 2024:KHC:44953
counsel who represents Sri.K.Suryanarayana Rao, learned
counsel on record for respondent No.2.
2. Respondent No.1 did not respond to the notice which
was served upon him.
3. Challenge in this appeal is the order that is rendered
by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dakshina Kannada,
Mangaluru in M.V.C. No.880/2020 dated 04.10.2021. The
appellant moved an application claiming damages of
Rs.1,00,000/- raising a ground that his car was damaged due
to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of respondent
No.1. The tribunal dismissed the claim petition giving a finding
that the appellant failed to establish the aspect of negligence
on part of the driver of respondent No.1. Assailing with the
findings given by the tribunal, appellant is before this Court.
4. Sri. Ravishankar Shastry.G representing the appellant
contends that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of respondent No.1. Though
sufficient evidence was produced in proof of the aspect of
negligence, the tribunal without considering the said evidence,
basing on its own presumptions and surmises, dismissed the
NC: 2024:KHC:44953
claim petition which is unjustifiable. Learned counsel thereby
seeks the Court to allow the appeal as prayed for.
5. Per contra the submission that is made by
Sri.Ravishankar C.R, learned counsel who represents
Respondent No.2 is that the accident occurred not due to the
rash and negligent driving of the driver of respondent No.1 but
due to the negligence of PW-2 who is none other than the son
of the appellant. Learned counsel further submits that the
tribunal considering all the facts and circumstances of the case
arrived to just conclusion and therefore the appeal is not
maintainable.
6. The case of the appellant is that on 05.06.2020 at
about 6.30 p.m., his son was proceeding in his car bearing
registration No.KA-19-MB-6253 from Udupi towards Mangaluru
and the car was indeed driven by his son. At that time the
driver of a car bearing registration No.KA-63-M-0422 who
drove the said car at a high speed and in a negligent manner,
came from interior cross road and dashed against the left
portion of his car suddenly while entering into the main road
and due to the said impact his car was extensively damaged.
NC: 2024:KHC:44953
7. The appellant apart from examining himself as PW-1,
examined his son who was driving the car at the relevant time
as PW-2. Both spoke that the accident occurred due to the rash
and negligent driving of the driver of respondent No.1.
8. No evidence whatsoever was produced before the
tribunal either by respondent No.1 or by respondent No.2 to
show that there was negligence on part of PW-2 in driving the
vehicle of the appellant. That apart, the contents of Ex.P-2-
Check Report cum Receipt places crucial role in deciding the
aspect of negligence. The driver of respondent No.1 admitted
his guilt and got the offence compounded by paying fine of
Rs.3,000/-.
9. In case, the driver of respondent No.1 was not at fault,
there is no requirement or necessity on this part to get the
offence compounded and pay fine. Without appreciating the
fact that a complaint was given raising an allegation that the
driver of respondent No.1 was at fault and due to his
negligence the accident occurred and the said driver admitted
his guilt and paid fine as per the contents of Ex.P-2, the
tribunal narrating its own version about the manner in which
NC: 2024:KHC:44953
the accident occurred, ultimately gave a finding that the
accident did not occur due to the rash and negligent driving of
the driver of respondent No.1.
10. The findings thus given are not based on the evidence
that was placed before the tribunal for consideration. When the
appellant has produced cogent and convincing evidence both
oral and documentary and where no contra evidence is
produced by the other side and where the evidence that is
produced by the appellant is convincing and clearly points out
that due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of
respondent No.1 the accident occurred, the tribunal ought not
to have rejected the claim of the appellant. Therefore this Court
holds that the appeal is required to be allowed holding that the
accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of respondent No.1.
11. However, as the aspect of quantification of damages
is to be decided by the tribunal, this Court considers desirable
to remand the matter back to the tribunal for consideration of
the issue regarding the damages and the amount which the
appellant is entitled to towards damages. Thus, the following:-
NC: 2024:KHC:44953
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed.
ii. The order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru in M.V.C. No.880/2020
dated 04.10.2021 is set aside.
iii. The matter is remanded back to the tribunal.
iv. The tribunal is directed to appreciate the evidence that is
produced and pass orders regarding the quantum of
compensation which the appellant is entitled to as
damages.
v. Parties to the proceedings are directed to make their
appearance before the tribunal either in person or
through their appointed counsel on 09.01.2025.
vi. No further notice is required to be issued to the parties to
the proceedings.
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
VS
