Karnataka High Court
N.S.Nagesh vs Smt. Puttamma on 3 September, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:36094
MFA No. 1354 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3 RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1354 OF 2016 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. N.S.NAGESH,
S/O SHIVEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT BYRAPURA VILLAGE & POST,
ALUR TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573201.
APPELLANT
(BY SRI. GIRISH B. BALADARE .,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. PUTTAMMA,
W/O LATE DASEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
R/AT ECHALAHALLI,
KASABA HOBLI,
HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT - 573201.
2. MANJAMMA,
Digitally signed by D/O LATE DASEGOWDA ,
PRAJWAL A AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
Location: HIGH COURT R/AT UPPALLI VILLAGE,
OF KARNATAKA KATTAYA HOBLI,
HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT - 573201.
3. KRISHNEGOWDA,
S/O LATE DASEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT ECHALAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI,
HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT -573201.
4. NEELAMMA,
D/O LATE DASEGOWDA,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:36094
MFA No. 1354 of 2016
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT ANACHIHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT - 573201.
5. PUSHPA,
D/O LATE DASEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUR 42 YEARS,
R/AT ECHALAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI,
HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT - 573201.
6. TULASAMMA @ SUKANYA,
D/O LATE DASEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT MARIGUDI KOPPALU ,
KASABA HOBLI,
HASSAN HOBLI,
HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT - 573201.
7. DYAVAMMA,
D/O LATE DASEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT ECHALAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI,
HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT - 573201.
8. H.M. PRAKASH,
S/O MANJUNATHA ,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT HANUBALU VILLAGE,
SAKALESHPURA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573201.
RESPONDENTS
(R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R7 AND R8 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
V/O DTD 14.11.2022 NOTICE TO R6 IS HELD SUFFICIENT.)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:25.02.2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1362/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST
TRACK COURT-I, ADDITIONAL MACT, HASSAN, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.1,60,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM
THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION AND ETC,.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:36094
MFA No. 1354 of 2016
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
In this appeal the appellant is challenging the liability
fastened against him by the judgment and award dated
25.02.2013 in MVC.No.1362/2012 passed by the Fast Track
Court-I and Additional MACT, Hassan ('the Tribunal' for
short).
2. For the sake of convenience, the rank of the parties
shall be referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are, on 27.01.2012 at
6:30 pm when the husband of the petitioner No.1, father of
the petitioner Nos.2 to 7 by name Dasegowda, deceased
along with Thimmegowda while walking by the side of
Kandali Grama panchayath office, a maruthi Omi car
bearing No. KA-05-P-2197 dashed against them due to
which the deceased succumbed to the injuries at the spot.
NC: 2024:KHC:36094
Claiming compensation the petitioners have filed the claim
before the Tribunal. Both the respondents have opposed
the claim by filing objection statement. The appellant was
the respondent No.2 before the Tribunal, as taken specific
plea that he has sold the said vehicle in favour of
respondent No.1 on 26.03.2011 itself, the RC was already
transferred in favour of respondent No.1 and he is no more
the owner of the said vehicle. Before the Tribunal in proof
of the same, no evidence was let in on behalf of the
respondent No.1. Hence, the Tribunal after assessing the
compensation fastened the liability against both the
respondents. Questing the liability fastening against him,
the respondent No.2 is before this Court.
4. Heard the arguments of Sri. Girish B. Baladare,
learned counsel for the petitioners. The respondent Nos.1
to 5 and 7 are served and unrepresented.
5. Respondent No.2 has filed IA.No.1/2022 under
Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC for production of additional
NC: 2024:KHC:36094
documents. To show that the RC of the vehicle in question
was transferred in the name of respondent No.1 with effect
from 26.03.2011 where as the accident took place on
27.01.2012. He has sworn to an affidavit that he was
prevented from producing these records before the Tribunal
and he is seeking permission to produce the additional
evidence in support of his contention raised in the objection
statement.
6. On careful perusal of the material on record it is
pertinent to note the car in question was involved in the
accident on 27.01.2012 causing death of deceased one
Dasegowda. There is a specific contention taken by
respondent No.2 in his objection statement before the
Tribunal, that he had transferred the vehicle in question in
favour of respondent No.1 H.M. Prakash and the RC has
been changed in the name of respondent No.1 with effect
from 26.03.2011. In support of this along with
IA.No.1/2022 the petitioner has produced Form No.29, 30
NC: 2024:KHC:36094
and also RC extract issued by RTO, Sakleshpura. On
perusal of these records prima facie show that with effect
from 26.03.2011 owner ship of car in question was
transferred in the name of respondent No.1. Since
respondent No.2 has not let in any evidence before the
Tribunal, the Tribunal has not accepted the contention
raised by the petitioner and thereby fastened the liability
against both the respondents. Hence, the petitioners are
before this Court.
7. The material on record clearly point out that on
26.03.2011 respondent No.2 has singed Form No.29 and
Form No.30 was presented to the RTO Authority of
Sakleshpura on 26.03.2011 and transfer of the vehicle from
the name of respondent No.2 to name of respondent No.1
is forthcoming. Hence, respondent No.2 is permitted to lead
evidence, to explain that he is not the owner of the vehicle
in question on the date of the accident.
NC: 2024:KHC:36094
8. The entire award passed by the Tribunal cannot
be set aside, it could not to set aside as regarding the
liability fastened against respondent No.2 alone. The
petitioners have no hindrance to proceed against
respondent No.1 to recover the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal. Hence, it is a fit case of limited remand in
respect of respondent No.2.
9. Accordingly, the appeal merits consideration, in
the result, the following:
ORDER
i) IA.No.1/2022 filed by the appellant /
respondent No.2 under Order 41 Rule 27 of
CPC is hereby allowed;
ii) The appeal in allowed in part;
iii) The impugned judgment and award by the
Tribunal fastening the liability against the
respondent No.2 - N.S. Nagesh is hereby set
aside;
NC: 2024:KHC:36094
iv) The matter is remanded to the Tribunal to the
limited extent of reconsidering the liability
aspect on the part of respondent No.2 - N.S.
Nagesh by affording opportunity to lead
evidence in support of his contentions raised in
the objection statement;
v) The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to
the Tribunal. In case liability is fastened against
respondent No.1 alone, the amount shall be
released to respondent No.2;
vi) Office shall transmit the application as well as
additional records filed in this appeal along with
the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal forth
with;
v) Without further notice parties shall appear
before the Tribunal on 15.10.2024.
SD/-
(T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA)
JUDGE
PNV
