Karnataka High Court
Sri.Basavarajappa vs Sri.Anil Kumar.M on 4 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:9272
MFA No. 9741 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9741 OF 2013(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. BASAVARAJAPPA,
S/O. KARIBASAPPA,
AGE: 30 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST AND ARECA NUT
BUSINESS,
R/O. MANANGI VILLAGE,
CHITRADURGA.
...APPELLANT
(BY MS. JAHNAVI M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHANDRAKANTH R.
GOULAY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. ANIL KUMAR M.,
S/O. MUNIKRISHNAPPA N.,
AGE: 40 YEARS,
Digitally C/O. RAJANNA T.N.,
signed by
TORAHUNASE VILLAGE,
SUVARNA T
JALA HOBLI,
Location: BANGALORE NORTH
HIGH (OWNER OF INDICA CAR
COURT OF
BEARING REGN NO.KA-50-1252).
KARNATAKA
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
OREINTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
SRI. SHARADA COMPLEX,
OPP. TO KSRTC BUSSTAND,
CHITRADURGA.
(POLICY NO.421200/31/2008/
2926 VALID FROM 19-07-2007
TO 18-07-2008. POLICY
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:9272
MFA No. 9741 of 2013
ISSUED BY DIVISIONAL OFFICE
NO.2. PB NO.9555,
BANGALORE BRANCH.)
...RESPONDENTS
(R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
BY SRI. A.R. LAKSHMI NARAYANA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.10.2012 PASSED IN
MVC.NO.469/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT, CHITRADURGA, DISMISSING THE
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the award passed in MVC.No.469/2008 dated
31.10.2012 by the Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court),
Chitradurga, the appellant-claimant is before this Court.
2. The facts of the case are that the claimant had filed
the petition seeking compensation of an amount of
Rs.3,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the motor
vehicle accident. It is the case of the claimant that on
22.11.2007 at 9.30 am., while the claimant was moving on the
motor cycle on the left side of Chitradurga - Davanagere road,
he was hit by Indica car and because of the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the Indica car, the claimant herein had
NC: 2025:KHC:9272
sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter, he was shifted to the
hospital and he was in-patient for 15 days and had to take bed
rest for another 6 months and he had sustained fracture of his
right ankle and fracture of fibula 1/3rd of the right leg. The
insurance company has filed their objections and had denied
the accident and nexus between the injuries and the accident.
By order impugned, the Trial Court had dismissed the case of
the claimant on three grounds, one is the claimant had not
produced the driving license, second is that he had not
impleaded the insurer of the motorcycle who is the proper and
necessary party to the petition and the third is that the driver
of the Indica car has given a complaint against the appellant
herein it means there is a rash and negligent driving on the
part of the appellant and accordingly, dismissed the application.
Aggrieved thereby, the claimant is before this Court.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant
submits that the Trial Court had failed to consider both the oral
and documentary evidence in its proper perspective and more
on assumptions and presumptions had dismissed the petition.
It is submitted that as the claimant is seeking compensation
against the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle i.e.,
NC: 2025:KHC:9272
Indica car. It is submitted that the insurer of the motorcycle is
not a necessary party to this petition. Further, it is stated that
the complaint given by the driver of the Indica car, the
appellant is acquitted. These aspects were not considered by
the Trial Court. Further, it is submitted that the appellant is
entitled for the compensation for the injuries sustained by him
and the order of the trial court is not a well considered one.
4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/
Insurance Company submits that the Trial Court had rightly
considered all the aspects as the claimant had failed to prove
the accident and considering the fact that no complaint is given
by him and the complaint is given by the driver/owner of the
Indica car and the chargesheet filed against him was not
questioned. The Trial Court had rightly dismissed the petition.
5. Having heard the learned counsels on either side,
perused the material on record. It is the case of the claimant
that he had sustained injuries in the accident. He had tried to
give the complaint, but the police have not taken his complaint.
The complaint is given by the driver/owner of the Indica car, a
full-fledged investigation was done, chargesheet was filed and
NC: 2025:KHC:9272
the appellant is acquitted in the said case. The reasons that are
given by the Trial Court particularly, the non-joinder of proper
and necessary party and presuming that the accident had
happened because of the rash and negligent driving of the
appellant and giving a finding on the negligence and dismissing
the petition filed by the appellant, in the considered opinion of
this Court, the reasons that are assigned are not proper
reasons to dismiss the petition. The Trial Court ought to have
considered the evidence on record and ought to have given an
opportunity to the claimant to prove his case and instead of
doing that the Trial Court on all the issues as discussed supra
had dismissed the petition. In that view of the matter, this
Court deems it appropriate to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed by setting aside the
award passed in MVC.No.469/2008 dated
31.10.2012 by the Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast
Track Court), Chitradurga and the matter is
remanded back to the trial court for fresh
consideration.
NC: 2025:KHC:9272
ii. The parties shall appear before the Trial Court
without further notice on 17.03.2025.
iii. The Trial Court shall dispose of the matter
within six months from 17.03.2025.
iv. Both the parties shall not seek unnecessary
adjournments.
v. The registry is directed to send the records to
the Trial Court along with the certified copy of
the order passed by this Court forthwith
without any delay.
vi. No Costs.
vii. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall
stand closed.
SD/-
(LALITHA KANNEGANTI)
JUDGE
BN
