Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 33129 (KAR)

NARAYANA SWAMY v. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COM. LTD

MFA/7107/2013 · 2025-02-10

Chillakur Sumalatha

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5887 MFA No. 7107 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7107 OF 2013(MV-D) BETWEEN: NARAYANA SWAMY, S/O SRI. MUNIYAPPA (LATE), AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT. BATTALA BAVANAHALLI, AVANI POST, MULBHAGAL TALUK, KOLAR - 563 116. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VASANTHAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COM. LTD REGIONAL OFFICE, KRUSHI BHAVAN, HUNDSON CIRCLE, NEAR CORPORATION, BANGALORE - 560 002. BY ITS MANAGER. 2. SRI. IMRAN KHAN, S/O HIDAYATHULLA KHAN, R/AT TEMPLE STREET, BETHAMANGALA, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT- 563 116. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. KRISHNA KISHORE, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 IS SERVED) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.4.2013 PASSED IN Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5887 MFA No. 7107 of 2013 MVC NO.6270/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, 26TH ACMM, MACT, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri.Vasanthappa learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri.S.Krishna Kishore learned counsel for respondent No.1. 2. Challenge in this appeal is the order that is rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru in MVC No.6270/2011 dated 30.04.2013. 3. The appellant herein, projecting to be the sole legal heir of the deceased Muniyappa, claimed compensation, on the ground that his father died in a road traffic accident. The claim petition stood dismissed through impugned order and aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 4. The manner of happening of the accident as projected by the appellant is that on 27.03.2011 at about - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5887 MFA No. 7107 of 2013 9.30 a.m. while the deceased Muniyappa was standing on the left side of the road in front of his house in order to cross the road, at that time a lorry bearing registration No.KA-08/2406 which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased Muniyappa, due to which deceased Muniyappa sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to those injuries on 07.05.2011. 5. Sri.Vasanthappa representing the appellant contends that the Tribunal unjustifiably dismissed the claim petition on flimsy grounds. Learned counsel submits that by all the evidence produced the appellant established beyond all reasonable doubt that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry which is involved in the accident. Only because there is delay of 13 days in lodging complaint to police and also on the ground that the appellant failed to produce MLC register extract, the Tribunal dismissed the petition. Learned counsel states that the appellant apart from examining himself as PW1, also produced all relevant documents to show that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. Learned counsel thereby seeks to allow the appeal and award compensation. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5887 MFA No. 7107 of 2013 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 Sri.S.Krishna kishore contends that the claim petition was dismissed on the ground that the appellant failed to establish actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and thus the order is valid. 7. As per the material available on record, the appellant apart from examining himself as PW1 also produced copy of FIR and complaint which is marked as Ex.P1, Ex.P2- Copy of Spot Panchnama, Ex.P3-Copy of IMV Report, Ex.P4- Copy of Rough Sketch, Ex.P5-copy of Post Mortem Report, Ex.P6-Copy of Inquest report and Ex.P7-Copy of Charge Sheet. There is no denial of the fact that the police after due investigation laid charge sheet against the driver of the lorry. 8. A meticulous perusal of record reveals that the first respondent herein i.e., Insurance Company did not take any plea projecting that the lorry bearing Registration No.KA-08/2406 is not involved in the accident. In the counter file, respondent No.1 contended that the deceased Muniyappa might have tried to cross the road all of a sudden without watching the vehicles and thus, he invited the alleged accident. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5887 MFA No. 7107 of 2013 It is also mentioned that the deceased Muniyappa is fully responsible for the accident to occur and that the driver of the lorry is not responsible for the said accident. A plea to that effect is taken at para seven of the counter filed. 9. This Court is of the view that apart from EX.P1 to Ex.P7 referred above, the contents of Ex.P8 are also relevant. EX.P8 is the OPD Book wherein there is a clear mention that there is history of alleged road accident. The date of accident is 27.03.2011 and EX.P8 contents reveal that on the same day, the said mention was made by the Hospital Authorities i.e, authorities of Sri Narasimharaja District Hospital, Kolar. Thus, it is abundantly clear that the documents exhibited by the appellant are sufficient to come to a conclusion with regard to the involvement of the lorry in the accident. The tribunal ought not to have dismissed the claim petition only on the ground that the MLC register extract is not produced by the appellant. Therefore, this court is of the view that the impugned order as prayed for is liable to be set aside. Resultantly, the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5887 MFA No. 7107 of 2013 (ii) The order that is rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru in MVC No.6270/2011 dated 30.04.2013 is set aside. (iii) The Tribunal is directed to appreciate the evidence that is brought on record and to pass fresh orders on all the issues framed. (iv) As the claim petition is of the year 2011, the Tribunal is directed to take steps to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE DS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 81