IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH M.F.A.No.31/2012 (MV) BETWEEN:
NARASIMHA SON OF ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/AT B.G. KERE VILLAGE MOLAKALMURU TALUK NOW R/AT C/O. MUTTAPPA KOGUNDE VILLAGE CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 501. … APPELLANT (BY SRI. M.T. JAGAN MOHAN, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. NAGARATHNAMMA W/O. B.E. VEERABHADRAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS OWNER OF THE LORRY BEARING REG.NO.19A-16-A-7207 R/AT B.G. KERE VILLAGE MOLAKALMURU TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 535.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER THE BRANCH OFFICE THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
SHARADA COMPLEX OPP. KSRTC BUS STAND CHITRADURGA-577 501. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V. NARAYANASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2 R1 SERVED) THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.08.2011 PASSED IN MVC.NO.686/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT, CHITRADURGA, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the appellant against the judgment and award passed in M.V.C.No.686 of 2010 dated 22.08.2011 dismissing the petition of the claimant on the file of Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Chitradurga.
2. Brief facts of the case:
It is the case of the claimant that on 11.09.2008 at about 3.30 p.m., the bullocks belong to the claimant were taken by one B.Krishnappa and after completion of the said work, while returning from the land of B.G.Kere Village along with agricultural implements, at that time, the driver of the lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-16-A-7207 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the bullocks. As a result, one bullock died at the spot and other bullock sustained the injuries. Hence, the claimant filed the claim petition before the Tribunal.
3. The Insurance Company appeared and filed the written statement denying the accident as well as the value of the bullock. The owner of the lorry-respondent No.1 though served with notice, did not choose to appear and contest the matter. Hence, she placed exparte.
4. The claimant in support of his claim, examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined another witness as P.W.2 and relied upon documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6.
Respondent did not choose to lead any evidence. The Tribunal, after considering both oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the claim petition. Hence, the present appeal is filed.
5. The grounds urged in the appeal by the claimant is that the Tribunal has not properly considered both oral and documentary evidence and also failed to consider Exs.P1 to P8. The Tribunal has erred in holding issue No.2 in negative as the claimant has not proved the ownership of bullocks and dismissed the claim petition. Further, the Tribunal has also erred in observing that the claimant has not produced any document to show that he is the owner of the bullocks and also in PM Report, which is marked as Ex.P.4, the name of the owner of the bullocks is mentioned as Tippeswamy and even the claimant has not signed the Mahazar as owner. Hence, the case of the claimant has not been proved. The Tribunal also erred in overlooking the evidence of P.W.2 who deposed that the bullocks belong to the claimant. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the Tribunal proceeded in an erroneous direction in coming to the conclusion that the claimant has not proved the ownership of the bullocks. The documents Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2-FIR and the complaint is very specific that the bullocks belong to the claimant and taking the discrepancy mentioned in Ex.P.4, the Tribunal has committed an error in dismissing the claim petition. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent–Insurance Company would contend that the claimant did not produce any document to prove the ownership of the bullock, which died on the spot and also not produced any document with regard to the other bullock which was injured. Though treatment was provided to the other injured bullock, no document is placed before the Court in support of the same. The Tribunal considering both oral and documentary evidence has rightly dismissed the petition. Hence, no grounds to entertain the appeal.
8. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and also learned counsel for the second respondent, the points that arise for consideration of this Court are:
1. Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in dismissing the claim petition in not awarding just and reasonable compensation and whether it requires interference of this Court?
2. What order?
Point Nos.1 and 2:
9. The very case of the claimant is that the bullocks were given to P.W.2 on the date of accident and hence, the complaint was given by P.W.2 detailing the occurrence of accident. The main reason assigned by the Tribunal while dismissing the claim petition is that the claimant has not produced any document to show that the bullocks belong to him. The Tribunal has failed to consider the contents of the documents- FIR and complaint, which are marked as Exs.P.1 and 2. On perusal of Exs.P.1 and 2, it is clear that the complaint was given on the same day at 16.30 hours and accident has occurred at 15.15 hours and there was no any delay in lodging the complaint.
10. On perusal of the contents of complaint-Ex.P.2 given by P.W.2, it is clear that the bullocks belong to the claimant and on that particular day, he hired the bullocks for agricultural work. It is also specifically mentioned in the complaint that on that day Tippeswamy was along with him. Hence, it is clear that the bullocks belong to the claimant. The contents of Exs.P.1 and 2 has not been considered by the Tribunal. The Court also cannot expect any documentary proof with regard to the bullocks. No doubt in Ex.P.4 dated 16.09.2008, the name of the owner is mentioned as Tippeswamy. The fact that Tippeswamy was along with the complainant is not in dispute. The complaint itself is very specific that Tippeswamy was along with the complainant. When such being the material on record, the Tribunal has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that Tippeswamy is mentioned as the owner. The said Tippeswamy has not made any claim with regard to the ownership of the bullocks and hence, the very approach of the Tribunal is very erroneous in holding that the claimant has not proved the ownership of the bullocks.
11. The accident is not in dispute. The vehicle which caused the accident also damaged and in support of the same, IMA Report-Ex.P.6 discloses that the vehicle which caused the accident also damaged. When such being the material available on record, the Tribunal has committed an error in dismissing the petition with regard to death of a bullock.
12. The short question which also arises for consideration before this Court is with regard to the value of the bullock which died at the spot. The PM report affirms the death of one bullock. Though claimant contends that the other bullock also sustained injuries and he has spent an amount of Rs.1,000/- for its treatment, nothing is placed on record in support of the same. On perusal of complaint- Ex.P.1 also, there is no mention in the complaint about the injury caused to the other bullock and hence, the claim of the claimant that the other bullock also sustained injury is not supported by any material evidence. This Court has to consider with regard to the death of other bullock since the Tribunal has committed an error in respect of the bullock, which died at the spot on the date of the accident. The claimant has claimed an amount of Rs.30,000/- and in support of the said claim, he has not produced any documentary proof. In the cross-examination of PW.1, the respondent elicited that the bullock was purchased three years prior to the accident and it was four years old when the accident has taken place. It is suggested that he is falsely claiming that the bullock cost an amount of Rs.30,000/- and the same has been denied. Though the value is denied by the respondent, the claimant did not choose to produce any document. However, taking note of the fact that the accident has occurred in the year 2008, in the absence of any documentary proof, this Court could make only a guess work of the value of the bullock. The fact that the bullock died at the spot is not in dispute and so also the same was taken by P.W.2 for agricultural work. Hence, it is appropriate to award an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards the value of the bullock.
In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following:-
ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is set aside by allowing the claim petition by granting a compensation of Rs.20,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till payment.
(iii) The second respondent - Insurance Company is directed to pay the amount of compensation within 8 weeks from today.
Sd/- JUDGE PYR