• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA GULBARGA BENCH DATED THIS THE 5 TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA MFA NO. 32258/2012 (MV) C/W MFA NO. 32237/2012 (MV) MFA NO. 32257/2012 (MV) MFA 32258/2012 BETWEEN SURESH S/O SHIVAPPA MANKANI AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. ABHIHAL, TQ:BASAVANA BAGEWADI, DIST:BIJAPUR, NOW AT GANG BOUDI BABALESHWAR COLONY, BIJAPUR-586101 ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. BAPUGOUDA SIDDAPPA, ADV.) AND 1. SABANNA S/O YAMANAPPA MASIBINAL AGE : 61 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O MUKARATHIHAL, TQ:BASAVANA BAGEWADI DIST:BIJAPUR-586101 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., SANGAM BUILDING, S.S.ROAD, 2 BIJAPUR-586101 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANGANAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADV. FOR R1, SRI. SANJAY M. JOSHI, ADV. FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT: 17.10.12 PASSED IN MVC NO: 1617/11 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL & FAST TRACK COURT-I/II AT BIJAPUR, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FILED U/S.166 OF THE MV ACT. MFA 32237/2012 BETWEEN SIDDAPPA S/O SANJEEVAPPA DODDAMANI AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. ABBIHAL, TQ: BASAVANA BAGEWADI DIST: BIJAPUR, NOW AT JALANAGAR, BIJAPUR –586101 ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. BAPUGOUDA SIDDAPPA, ADV.) AND 1. SABANNA S/O YAMANAPPA MASIBINAL AGE : 61 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE R/O. MUKARATHIHAL, TQ: BASAVANA BAGEWADI, DIST: BIJAPUR-586101. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., SANGAM BUILDING, S.S.ROAD, BIJAPUR-586101. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANGANAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADV. FOR R1, SRI. SANJAY M. JOSHI, ADV. FOR R2) 3 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT: 17.10.12 PASSED IN MVC NO: 1615/11 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL & FAST TRACK COURT-I/II AT BIJAPUR, WHEREIN DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FILED U/S. 166 OF THE MV ACT. MFA 32257/2012 BETWEEN SIDDAPPA S/O SABANNA MASIBINAL AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O MUKARATHIHAL, TQ: BASAVANA BAGEWADI DIST: BIJAPUR NOW AT ZHENDA KATTI JUMMA MASHID ROAD, BIJAPUR-586101 ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. BAPUGOUDA SIDDAPPA, ADV.) AND 1. SABANNA S/O YAMANAPPA MASIBINAL AGE : 61 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O MUKRATHIHAL, TQ: BASAVANA BAGEWADI, DIST: BIJAPUR-586101 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., SANGAM BUILDING, S.S.ROAD, BIJAPUR-586101 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANGANAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADV. FOR R1, SRI. SANJAY M. JOSHI, ADV. FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT: 17.10.12 PASSED IN MVC NO: 1616/11 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL & FAST 4 TRACK COURT-I/II AT BIJAPUR, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FILED U/S.166 OF THE MV ACT. THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- J U D G M E N T All these appeals have arisen out of the same judgment and award passed By learned Presiding Officer of MACT and FTC-I/II at Bijapur, in MVC Nos.1615/2011, 1616/2011 and 1617/2011, dated 17.10.2012, filed under Sections 166 of the MV Act. 2. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the alleged offending tractor and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the said tractor. According to the appellants/claimants the accident has took place on 12.08.2011 at aBout 7.30 a.m. in the vicinity of Vandal railway station, Bijapur district. According to the appellant Suresh, he was standing near the place of occurrence By the side of the road and other appellants were travelling in a motorcycle. According to them, the tractor Bearing No.KA-28/TA-9314, Belonging to the 1 st 5 respondent, voluntarily insured By 2 nd respondent Being driven rashly and negligently dashed against them, caused severe injuries and had to Be shifted to the Primary Health Center at Nidagundi and thereafter, they were shifted to Dhanus hospital at Bagalkot. According to them, the accident took place solely due the negligence of the driver of the tractor Belonging to 1 st respondent and voluntarily insured By 2 nd respondent. 3. The 1 st respondent owner is none other than the father of PW.2 Siddappa, the petitioner in MVC No.1616/2011, who did not seriously contest the matter, except stating that the vehicle in question involved in the accident and it had Been insured on the relevant point of time. 4. The 2 nd respondent insurer had denied the material averments and had called upon the appellant. According to them, the appellants had colluded with the 1 st respondent owner, filed false claim petitions. 6 5. Even otherwise, the driver of the tractor did not hold the valid and effective driving licence at the relevant point of time and that there was inordinate delay in preparing FIR and FIR as filed after due discussion in order to make delay. With these pleadings, the Insurance Company has requested the triBunal to dismiss the petitions. 6. On the Basis of the aBove pleadings, the following issues came to Be framed in all these cases as under: MVC No.1615/2011 1. Whether the petitioner proves that on 12.08.2011 Railway gate, near Vandal Railway Station, the petitioner along with his friend Suresh Mankani were proceeding on their motor cycle, By that time his friend Shidappa MasiBinal came from his motor cycle they saw his friend and stopped their motor cycle By side of the road and talking with each other at that time one tractor dashed to the motor cycle, the road traffic accident took place due to actionaBle negligence of driver of the vehicle i.e., tractor Bearing its Reg.No.KA-28/TA-9314 By which petitioner sustained injuries? 7 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom? 3. What order or award? MVC No.1616/2011 4. Whether the petitioner proves that on 12.08.2011 Railway gate, near Vandal Railway Station, the petitioner and his friends Siddappa S/o Sanjeevappa Doddamani & Suresh Mankani were talking each other with their motor cycle at that time one tractor dashed to the motor cycle, the road traffic accident took place due to actionaBle negligence of driver of the vehicle i.e., tractor Bearing its Reg. No.KA-28/TA-9314 By which petitioner sustained injuries? 5. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom? 6. What order or award? MVC No.1617/2011 1. Whether the petitioner proves that on 12.08.2011 Railway gate, near Vandal Railway Station, the petitioner along with his friend Siddappa S/o Sanjeevappa Dodamani were proceeding on their motor cycle By that time his friend Siddappa 8 MasiBinal came from his motor cycle and they saw and stopped their motor cycle talking with each other, at that time one Tractor dashed to the motor cycle, the road traffic accident took place due to actionaBle negligence of driver of the vehicle i.e., Tractor Bearing its Reg.No.-28/TA- 9314 By which petitioner sustained injuries? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom? 3. What order or award? 7. Ultimately, the learned Judge has answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in the negative. Consequently the petitions are dismissed. 8. These appeals have Been filed challenging the judgment and award passed By the triBunal. It is contended that the triBunal has adopted a peculiar approach without looking into the case properly. It is further argued that there was no scope for the triBunal to suspect the Bonofidies of the police who conducted the investigation and filed charge sheet against the driver of the tractor in question. Reliance is 9 placed on the decision of Hon’Ble Apex court reported in 2011 AIR SCW 1530 in the case of Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan & Ors. It is contended that the delay in filing the complaint cannot Be the ground to deny the justice to the victim. It is further contended that the delay should have Been liBerally construed and the Bonafidies of the claimants/appellants could have Been suspected. 9. Per contra, Sri.Sanjay M. Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has vehemently argued that the triBunal has adopted right approach relying upon the very intimation given By the injured to the doctor at the time of the admission. Reliance is placed on the decision reported in CDJ 2007 SC 627 in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Premlata Shukla & Others. It is argued that the documents cannot Be considered for one purpose and cannot Be rejected for another purpose. 10 10. The matters are posted for admission and heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and with their consent, matters are taken up together for final hearing. 11. Perused the records including the LCR summoned from the triBunal. 12. It is true that the procedure adopted in conducting the case By MACT is summary in nature. What is argued Before this Court By the learned counsel for the appellants is that when the charge sheet has Been filed By concluding the investigation, the triBunal could not have Been suspected the Bonafidies of the contents of the charge sheet. It is further argued that the police officials are puBlic officials and the investigation conducted By the said puBlic officials cannot Be ignored. Entire evidence placed on record will have taken considered. As urged By the learned counsel for the respondent representing the Insurance Company, documents cannot Be considered for one purpose and cannot Be rejected for another purpose.

Load more

  14

Copy Link