IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. L. NARAYANA SWAMY ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MFA NO. 5179/2012 (MV) BETWEEN:
1.SMT. LAKSHMI W/O LATE KUMAR AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS 2.NANJEGOWDA S/O KARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS BOTH ARE R/A LALANAKERE VILLAGE GANDASI HOBLI ARASIKERE TALUK-573103 ... APPELLANTS (BY SMT P V KALPANA, ADVOCATE) AND 1.M/S. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD DIVISION OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR S S COMPLEX, SUBHASH CIRCLE HASSANA-573201 2.SRI T RANGASWAMY S/O T THIMMAIAH, MAJOR R/A GANESH NAGARA CHANNARAYAPATNA HASSANA-573201 3.SRI BASAVARAJU S/O HUCHEGOWDA, MAJOR R/A ALADIHALLI VILLAGE GANDASI HOBLI ARASIKERE TALUK -573103 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K SURESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SMT. D K KAMALA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; R-3 SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.07.2010 PASSED IN MVC NO.264/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, MACT, ARASIKERE, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The claimants are the wife and father of the deceased.
2. It is the case of the claimants that on an information, the wife of the deceased went to the spot of accident and found that the deceased was her husband. Hence, she filed a complaint alleging that on 03.07.2008 at about 5 a.m., when the deceased was walking on the left side of the road near Gandasi handpost in front of Dinesh Automobiles, a Maruthi Van bearing No.KA-01-M-5414 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased resulting in his death. The said complaint came to be registered in Crime No.102/2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and after investigation, charge sheet has been filed against one Ashok, who was the driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal, by its order dated 09.07.2010, dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the claimants have not proved the involvement of the alleged vehicle in the accident.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that though the wife, who has been examined as P.W.1, was not an eyewitness to the accident, she has deposed that her husband died due to an accident. The complaint filed by her has been investigated and charge sheet came to be filed, wherein it is stated that one Ashok, who was driving the offending vehicle, has caused the accident. Learned counsel submits that when it has been referred in the chargesheet that a particular person has caused the accident, that is sufficient for the purpose of fixing the liability.
4. The Tribunal is supposed to conduct summary proceedings but, matters like this are not necessarily to be dealt with like any other civil or criminal proceeding. The owner of the vehicle did not contest the claim petition. Though specific grounds have been taken by the insurance company, it did not dispute the charge sheet since neither the investigating officer nor the driver of the vehicle was examined. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal has committed an error in dismissing the claim petition.
5. For the reasons stated hereinabove, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 09.07.2010 passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.264/2008 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The Tribunal is expected to pass orders at the earliest.
The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal without awaiting for any notice on 10.04.2019.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE bkv