IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY MFA.NO.6166/2015(MV-D) BETWEEN 1. SRI. G. MAHESHWARAPPA S/O GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 2. SMT. SAVITHRAMMA W/O G.MAHESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, NOW BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF NEHRU NAGARA, HOLALAKERE ROAD CHITRADURGA TOWN-577501 ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI SRINIVAS N, ADVOCATE) AND 1. CHANDRAPPA S/O RAMAPPA AGED MAJOR, OWNER OF TRACTOR BEARING NO.KA-16-T-4314/4315, RESIDENT OF MADHURE VILLAGE, HOSADURGA TALUK SINCE DEAD BY LRS 1(a) ONKARAMMA W/O LATE CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 1(b) PRAKASH S/O LATE CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 1(c) DAYANANDA S/O LATE CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 1(d) RAMESH S/O LATE CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT MADHURE VILLAGE HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577501 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V B SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A TO D) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.04.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.530/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, IV MACT, CHITRADURGA, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, SATYANARAYANA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The claimants in MVC No.530/2013 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT-IV, Chitradurga, have come up in this appeal impugning the judgment and award dated 22.04.2015 in dismissing their claim petition.
2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that the appellants herein are the parents of the deceased M.Nagaraja. That on 28.12.2012 at about 6.30 p.m. while he was returning back to his house at Hosadurga Town from Bommenahally on his motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-16/S-2678 was hit by the Tractor Trailer bearing Reg.No.KA-16/T-4314/4315 resulting in his instant death. Hence, claim petition was filed by the parents seeking compensation for the death of their son. The said claim petition was not only filed against the owner of the Tractor-Trailer so also against the legal representatives of the owner.
3. When the claim petition came up for evidence before the Tribunal, the 1st claimant-father of the deceased adduced evidence contending that the accident took place between 28.12.2012 and 29.12.2012 while his son was returning to his house at Hosadurga Town from arecanut garden situated at Bommenahally. The complaint Ex.P1 would clearly indicate that the complainant was a teacher by profession. He has lodged complaint in his own handwriting where he would state that he was informed by somebody that a body of a male member was lying on the road where several people had gathered on the spot and the informer told the 1st claimant to check whether it is the body of his son or not.
4. It is in this background, the 1st claimant and his son-in-law went to the spot where the body of the 1st claimant’s son was lying. It was on 29.12.2012 at about 9.00 a.m. in the complaint he would also state that he spoke lastly to his son at 6.30 p.m. and he was under the impression that his son stayed in the night at their garden only and when he checked up in the next morning his son had left the garden previous evening and has not reached the house and at the same time, he got information indicating about his son having died in an accident which has taken place involving an unknown vehicle.
5. Hence, a complaint is registered in Cr.No.374/2012 with Hosadurga Police Station of Chitradurga District. However, subsequently, the police have filed charge sheet against the accused on 30.01.2013 before the Tribunal indicating that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor-trailer belonging to the sole respondent. Though such a statement is made by the Investigating Officer who has filed the charge sheet, there is nothing on record to substantiate how, in what manner the investigation was conducted by the investigating officer involving the aforesaid tractor-trailor. When the entire evidence with reference to the complaint and the investigation of the police is looked into, it is clearly seen that the police have miserably failed to establish the involvement of the tractor-trailor involved in the accident with motorcycle of the deceased Nagaraj resulting in his death. Besides, there are no eyewitnesses to the accident. The 1st claimant who was examined as PW1 before the Tribunal was not able to substantiate death of his son caused due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor-trailor belonging to the respondent. Without there being any evidence which supports the claim of the appellants herein, rejection of the claim petition by the Tribunal appears to be just and proper.
6. Therefore, question of admitting this appeal to consider whether the claim petition can be allowed awarding compensation to the claimants by shifting the liability to pay compensation on the legal representatives of the owner of the tractor-trailor does not arise for consideration and it is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE TL