IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL AND THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA M.F.A.No.170/2015 BETWEEN 1. SMT.MALLAMMA W/O MAHADEVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 2. SRI MAHADEVAIAH S/O PUTTAMADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, BOTH R/AT # 365, RAGIBOMMANAHALLI, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT, ALSO AT: # 48, 1ST CROSS, ELACHI HALLI, KANAKAPURA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 086. ... APPELLANTS (By Sri MURALIKRISHNA K.R., ADV.) AND 1. M/s CHOLAMANDALAM M.S. GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., PREVIOUSLY AT # 9/1,ULSOOR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 042 NOW AT STAR BAZAR BUILDING, 4TH FLOOR RAJAJINAGAR 6TH BLOCK, BENGALURU-560 010 REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.
2. SRI VISWANATHA PALKI AGED MAJOR, # 11,1ST B MAIN ROAD,6TH CROSS ROAD, SHIVANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010 ALSO AT:
# 15, 15TH MAIN,KURUBARAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 086. ... RESPONDENTS (By Sri O.MAHESH, ADV.FOR R1; R2-SERVED) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:14.11.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.4766/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION, AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT 1. This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the dismissal of the claim petition filed by the claimants- appellants.
2. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) has dismissed the claim petition on the ground that petitioners herein failed to establish that they were the legal representatives of deceased Nagaraju. Therefore, without going into other aspects of the matter as to whether deceased Nagaraju sustained injuries in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 19.08.2004 at about 6.30 a.m. due to the alleged rash and negligent driving of Mini Door Goods Auto bearing registration No.KA-02-AC-9090 by its driver, the Tribunal has proceeded to dismiss the claim petition holding that question of payment of any compensation did not arise.
3. We have heard Mr. K.R.Muralikrishna, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. O.Mahesh, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1-Insurance Company.
4. At the outset, we find that the Tribunal has not taken the trouble of properly appreciating the evidence on record, particularly that of PW-1 – Mahadevaiah. In his evidence, he has stated that deceased Nagaraju was his son; he was not married and except Mahadevaiah – petitioner no.1, there were no other persons who were dependent on deceased Nagaraju. He has further stated that deceased Nagaraju was working as Cleaner in the Mini Door Goods Auto bearing Registration No.KA-02-AC- 9090 belonging to respondent no.2-Viswanatha Palki. He has narrated the manner in which the accident occurred. He has produced Ex.P-16 – Voter Identity Card issued by the Election Commission of India, wherein the name of deceased B.M.Nagaraju has been shown as voter and his father’s name is shown as Mahadevaiah. This document is produced apparently to establish the relationship of PW-1 – Mahadevaiah with deceased Nagaraju as his son.
5. The first issue framed by the Tribunal is regarding the proof of status of the claimants as the legal representatives of deceased Nagaraju. Ex.P-16 being the crucial document, the Tribunal ought to have taken note of the same while recording its finding holding that the claimants had failed to establish that they were the legal representatives of deceased Nagaraju. There is absolutely no reference to this document in the course of the judgment.
6. Having answered the first issue in the negative, the Tribunal has summarily rejected the claim by answering the other issues regarding factum of accident and actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the mini door auto, holding that they did not survive for consideration. We are unable to appreciate the approach adopted by the Tribunal in arriving at such a conclusion without appreciating the evidence on record.
7. In the light of the above discussion, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal rejecting the claim petition cannot be sustained. Hence, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law. All other contentions urged by the learned Counsel for both parties are kept open. Liberty is reserved to both parties to adduce additional evidence, if any. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the claim petition, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Both parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 16.11.2017. The Tribunal shall ensure that respondent no.2 is notified and served in the matter before taking up the matter.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE KK