IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH M.F.A.No.3350/2012 (MV) BETWEEN:
1. SMT. N. SHOBHA, W/O. LATE P.R. SRINIVASA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.
2. S. SRILAKSHMI, D/O. LATE P.R. SRINIVASA, AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS, 3. S. LIKITH S/O. LATE P.R. SRINIVASA, AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS, APPELLANTS 2 AND 3 ARE MINORS, REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER APPELLANT No.1 SMT. N. SHOBHA.
ALL ARE R/AT POLANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, MITTEMARI HOBLI, BAGEPALLI TQ., CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT – 562 101. … APPELLANTS (BY SMT. SUGUNA R. REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI. RAMACHANDRAPPA, S/O. KARIDAPPA, MAJOR IN AGE, R/AT KADAPALLI VILLAGE, HAMPASANDRA POST AND MANDAL, GUDIBANDA TALUK, CHIKBALLAPUR DISTRICT-562 101.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURNACE CO. LTD., VIGNESHWARA BUILDINGS, NEAR OVER BRIDGE, No.2/7, PADUKKOTTAI ROAD, TIRUCHIRUPALLI, THAMILNADU-636 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. E.R. DIWAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2, R-1 SERVED) THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.12.2011 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN MVC.NO.33/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, CHICKBALLAPUR, DISMISSING I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER SECTION 140 OF MV ACT, FOR COMPENSATION, CONSEQUENTLY THE ENTIRE PETITION IS DISMISSED.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 7.12.2011 passed in M.V.C.No.33/2009, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Additional MACT, Chickballapur, dismissing claim petition.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the dismissal of the claim petition is contrary to law, an error apparent on the face of the record and in violation of the well established principles governing the award of compensation as per Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘the Act’ for short). The Tribunal has committed a serious error while dismissing the claim petition on merits without providing an opportunity to the appellants/claimants to prove that whether the deceased was covered under the policy or not by leading evidence. The reasoning adopted by the Tribunal is erroneous. Even if the Tribunal comes to a conclusion that negligence was solely on account of the deceased, then also under sub-Section (4) of Section 140 of the Act, the claimants are entitled for compensation on the basis of strict liability and claim petition cannot be rejected on the ground that the rider of the vehicle contributed to the accident. The very approach of the Tribunal is erroneous. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants in his arguments vehemently contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in not considering Section 140 of the Act under the head “no fault liability”. The Tribunal dismissed I.A.No.1 filed under Section 140 of the Act by coming to the conclusion that the claimants are not entitled for compensation. Consequently, the entire petition is dismissed. Hence, the impugned judgment and award is required to be set aside.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would contend that it is a self-accident and hence the claimants are not entitled for compensation. Hence, there are no grounds to set aside the impugned order.
5. Having considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and the order passed by the Tribunal, the point that arise for the consideration of this Court is:
(i) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in dismissing the I.A. and consequently dismissing the claim petition and whether it requires interference of this Court?
6. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, the Tribunal has committed an error in dismissing the application filed under Section 140 of the Act by coming to the conclusion that the claimants are not entitled for compensation under Section 140 of the Act. The Tribunal failed to take note of the very object of Section 140 of the Act and erroneously proceeded in dismissing the application and also the claim petition. Hence, I am of the opinion that it requires interference of this Court in setting aside the judgment and requires remanding of the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.
7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.
(iii) The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 13.1.2020, without expecting any separate notice from the Tribunal.
(iv) The Tribunal is also directed to dispose of the matter within three months from 13.1.2020.
(v) The learned counsel for both the parties are directed to assist the Court in disposing of the matter within the stipulated period.
Sd/- JUDGE MD