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 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7666 OF 2010 (MV) BETWEEN:
1. SRI.KODIGOWDA S/O CHENNAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/A HANUMANTHAPURA VILLAGE ATHAGUR POST, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT 2. SRI.H.K.SHIVAPPA S/O KODIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/A HANUMANTHAPURA VILLAGE ATHAGUR POST, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT 3. SRI H K PRAKASH S/O KODIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/A HANUMANTHAPURA VILLAGE ATHAGUR POST, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI.T P VIVEKANANDA, ADV.) AND:
1. SRI H.K.PRAKASH S/O KODIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/A HANUMANTHAPURA VILLAGE ATHAGUR POST, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT OWNER OF BAJAJ CT 100 BEARING NO.KA-11/L5570 2. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO.363, SHREE HARI COMPLEX, SEETHA VILAS ROAD, MYSORE-570 024 POLICY NO.G06999618C20 1671268 VALID FROM 04/11/2005 TO 03/11/2006 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.O MAHESH, ADV. FOR R2; R1 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:06.02.2010 PASSED IN MVC NO.987/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE(SR.DN) MACT, MADDUR, DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T Claim petition filed by the petitioner before the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) Maddur in MVC No.987 of 2006 came to be rejected by by its order dated 06th February 2010 by relying upon Exhibit R3-MLC extract; and at the relevant column, i.e. ‘history of accident or injury’, it is stated that the patient brought with history of alleged self-fall from cycle at 8.00 p.m.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that at the instance of the respondent-Insurer investigation had been made by CID (Crime), Bangalore wherein it is referred that the injured succumbed to the road traffic accident injuries, which unequivocally establishes the fact of occurrence of motor vehicle accident. It is submitted that for not producing the investigation report the Tribunal has rejected the claim petition and in case if it is remanded, the appellant would produce the copy of the same and also adduce evidence. Hence, the learned counsel submits to set aside the order and requests to remand to Tribunal for fresh consideration.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent-Insurer supports the order and submits to dismiss the appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The claim petition has been dismissed. The discussion is made with regard to Exhibit R3-MLC report. However, the investigation report which is made available before this Court reveals that there is a road traffic accident, the injured initially suffered injuries and thereafter succumbed to the same. Under the circumstance, I am of the opinion that the matter needs to be remanded to the Tribunal reserving liberty to both the parties to mark documents and to adduce evidence. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. To enable the Tribunal to pass orders afresh the judgment and award dated 06th February 2010 passed in MVC No.987 of 2006 by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Maddur is set aside. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 15th April 2019, without waiting for any notice in this regard.
5. The additional evidence produced by the counsel for the appellant before this court is directed to be returned in order to enable him to produce the same before the Tribunal.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE lnn