IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 04th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY M.F.A. No.1090/2015 [MV] BETWEEN :
1. SRI SIDDARAJU S/O DODDANARASIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 2. SMT. GANGAMMA W/O SIDDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 3. MR NARASIMHAMURTHY S/O SIDDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, 4. MISS SHILPA D/O SIDDARAJAU, AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, 5. MASTER SHIVA D/O SIDDARAJAU, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, 6. MASTER ABHI S/O SIDDARAJAU, AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS, APPELLANT NOS.4 TO 6 ARE MINORS REP BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN, AND NEXT FRIEND FATHER, APPELLANT NO.1 ALL ARE R/AT 5TH CROSS, SLN NAGAR, KYATHASANDRA, TUMKURU TOWN-572104 ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI V B SIDDARAMAIAH, ADV.) AND :
1. THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., CENTENARY BUIDLING, M G ROAD, BENGALURU-560001 RERPESENTED BY ITS MANAGER 2. SRI V R HARSHITH S/O RANGANARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT SRI RANGA NILAYA, 2ND CROSS, S S PURAM, TUMKURU TOWN-572102 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H N KESHAVA PRASHANTH, ADV. FOR R-1; SRI R B SADASHIVAPPA, ADV. FOR R-2) THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:17.11.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.382/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, TUMKURU, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the claimants - legal representatives of the deceased aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.11.2014 in MVC No.382/2012 passed by the Presiding Officer, Court of Fast Track, at Tumkuru, wherein the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition.
2. It is the case of the appellants that, on 03.08.2011 at about 5.45 p.m., the deceased Lakshmidevamma, aged about 18 years was traveling as a pillion rider in the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-06-V-3924 and one Yoganarasimhaiah was riding the same and when they were going near Nandihalli, Nijagal gate, N.H.-4 road on the left side of the road, slowly and cautiously, at that time, a Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-51-7090 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the said motorcycle. Due to the impact, both deceased and rider fell down and sustained bleeding injuries and also grievous injuries and both of them succumbed to the injuries on the spot.
3. The claimants of deceased rider – Yoganarasimhaiah filed a claim petition in MVC No.283/2012 before the MACT-10, Tumkur, wherein, it allowed the claim petition by judgment and award dated 17.04.2015 by awarding a compensation of Rs.3,03,000/- and insurance has satisfied the award amount. The claimants of deceased Lakshmidevamma filed MVC No.382/2012 before the Court of Fast Track, Tumkuru and the same was dismissed on 17.11.2014.
4. The grounds urged by the appellants are that, when the case was registered in respect of an accident in Crime No.264/2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304A of IPC and Section 134 (A) (B) of Motor Vehicles’ Act, by the Kyathasandra police and when the charge sheet was not been challenged by the insurance company, the tribunal has erred in coming to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to the fault of the driver of the bus. Hence, the present appeal is filed.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.
6. When two claim petitions were filed before two different Tribunals by claimants on behalf of the rider and pillion rider, the Tribunal, Tumkuru had allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants of the rider and the Tribunal, Tumkuru which had dealt with the case of the pillion rider, had dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimants of the deceased pillion rider, by doubting the involvement of the offending vehicle-Bus. The insurance company has not preferred any appeal in respect of claim made by the claimants of the rider.
7. Under these circumstances, when one of the Tribunals has allowed the claim petition pertaining to the deceased rider and the other Tribunal has rejected the claim petition of the deceased pillion rider on the same set of records as to the nature of accident and the liability. It is therefore just and necessary for the Tribunal to reconsider the matter on merits. Both the parties are reserved liberty to adduce oral and documentary evidence, if any.
8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and remanded. The impugned judgment of the Tribunal is hereby set aside and remanded back with a direction to consider oral and documentary evidence and dispose of the matter on merits in accordance with law.
9. Liberty is reserved to both the parties to produce any evidence or records.
10. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 09.01.2018, without expecting any notice.
Sd/- JUDGE MH/-