IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.NO.5737 OF 2014 (MV) BETWEEN:
Sri Mariraju Chetty C P S/o C.Papaiah Chetty Aged about 47 years R/at No.1431, Chikkaballapura Town Chikkaballapura – 01 (By Sri Mahadevaswamy P, Advocate) AND:
1. The Managing Director K.S.R.T.C. Depot Bengaluru Central Office K.H.Road, Shanthinagar Bengaluru – 560 027 2. Ashwathanarayana Reddy S/o Bayyanna No.39, Sopahalli Chikkaballapura Taluk Chikkaballapura District-01 3. The Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd., No.1114/63, 2nd Floor Thakur Complex, 1st Main ... Appellant S.C.Road, Yashwanthpura Bengaluru – 560 022 (By Sri F.S.Davali, Advocate for R1; Sri K.V.Naik, Advocate for R2 & Sri A.M.Venkatesh, Advocate for R3) ... Respondents This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and award dated 10.06.2014 passed in MVC No.6281/2012 on the file of the XX Additional Small Cause Judge, Member, MACT, Bengaluru, dismissing the claim petition for compensation.
This MFA coming on for admission, this day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT The claimant is in appeal being aggrieved by the dismissal of his claim petition vide judgment and award dated 10.06.2014 in MVC No.6281/2012 on the file of the MACT and XX Additional Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru.
2. The claimant filed the claim petition under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation for the accidental injuries suffered by him in a road traffic accident. It is stated that on 25.05.2012, when the claimant was proceeding in Hero Honda Splendor motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-40/8544 as a pillion rider, a KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-07/F-1131 came from opposite direction in rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle, due to which the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries.
3. On issuance of notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared before the Tribunal, but respondent No.1 Corporation only filed its written statement.
4. The claimant examined himself as PW-1 and marked 13 documents and also examined one witness as PW-2 and marked 4 documents through him. Respondent No.1 got examined one of its officer as RW-1 and also marked Ex.R.1.
5. The Tribunal, even though the claim petition was filed under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, proceeded to consider the same as it was filed under Section 166 of the Act and ultimately dismissed the petition.
6. Further, the Tribunal observed that even though the respondent Nos.2 and 3 were impleaded subsequently, the claimant has not amended the petition seeking relief and compensation against the impleaded respondent Nos.2 and 3. Further, the claimant has also not led evidence in respect of the impleaded respondent Nos.2 and 3. There is a finding that the accident had taken place due to the negligent riding of the motorcycle by its rider, where the claimant was pillion rider.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contended that the petition was filed under Section 163(A) of the Act and he was entitled for compensation under Section 163(A) of the Act as he was the pillion rider in the motorcycle. There was no need for him to establish the negligence on the part of the owner of the vehicle or rider of the motorcycle or driver of the KSRTC bus. When the claim petition was perused from the records, there was a correction in the claim petition as Section 163(A). When the order sheet of the Tribunal was seen there is mention about the petition was under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore this Court directed the Registrar of Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru to hold an enquiry and submit his report. Accordingly the Registrar, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru submitted his report dated 03.10.2019 stating there is correction to say that it is under Section 163(A) of the Act. But when it was corrected is not known. Very importantly the report indicates that the respondent No.1-Corporation has filed its objection statement stating that the objections to the claim petition filed under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act. When the respondent No.1-Corporation filed objections to claim petition under Section 163(A) of the Act, it is to be inferred that the claim petition was filed under Section 163(A) of the Act itself. Thus, I am of the view that the Tribunal has not looked into the objections filed by the respondent No.1-Corporation. Therefore I am of the view that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is wholly erroneous and liable to be set aside. Accordingly, judgment and award dated 10.06.2014 in MVC No.6281/2012 on the file of the XX Additional Small Cause Judge, Member, MACT, Bengaluru is set-aside and the claim petition is remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration treating the petition filed under Section 163(A) of the Act. Accordingly the appeal is allowed. Matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are at liberty to file their written statement before the Tribunal and the parties are at liberty to lead further evidence.
Counsel for the parties submit that a date may be fixed for appearance of the parties before the Tribunal. Accordingly, parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 22.11.2019.
Registry is directed to send back the lower Court records, forthwith.
Kmv/-
SD/- JUDGE