IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. L. NARAYANA SWAMY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE M.F.A. NO.4018 OF 2015 (MV) BETWEEN:
SRI.VENKATESH PRASAD S/O SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT NO. 212, HIPPE ANAJANEYA LAYOUT PUTTAIAHANA PALYA NELAMANGALA TOWN – 571 202 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. SRINIVAS.V, ADV.) AND:
1. RAVI KUMAR G.S S/O SHIVARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS NES GHANDI NAGAR CHANNAPPA BADAVANE MAGADI TALUK – 571 246 RAMANAGAR DISTRICT 2. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., GROUND FLOOR NO.31 TBR TOWER, 1ST CROSS, NEW MISSION ROAD NEAR BANGALORE STOCK EXCHANGE BANGALORE – 27 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.E.I.SANMATHI, ADV. FOR R2; R1 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:18.03.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.1856/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SCJ & XXXIII ACMM, MEMBER-MACT, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T The claim petition came to be rejected by referring to Exhibits R2 and R3. Exhibit R2 is the MLC report and exhibit R3 is the MLC register extract of the Government Hospital. In exhibit R2 MLC report issued by Harsha hospital wherein he was taken for treatment, it is referred that the injured was brought for treatment and he was in inebriated condition. Exhibit R3 MLC register extract of the Government Hospital disclose that the two wheeler was ridden by one Hemanth/Manjunath. The reason assigned to the effect that the injured was under the influence of alcohol is not the only ground to reject the claim petition unless it is assessed as to what was the quantity of alcohol consumption and whether the consumption was under the permissible quantity or not is to be taken note of. Secondly, who was driving the vehicle, was it Manjunath or Hemanth, is not a ground to reject the petition, unless there is an evidence to that effect. Accident is not in dispute, complaint has been made, first information report is produced as per exhibit P1, and the charges-sheet has also been filed. Though complaint is made that was not taken note of and the claim petition came to be rejected only on the basis of Exhibits R2 and R3. The reasons assigned by the Tribunal for rejection of claim petition are insufficient. In that view of the matter, without expressing any opinion, the matter stands remitted to the Tribunal. In view of reminding the matter to the tribunal for fresh consideration, the order dated 18th March 2015 passed in MVC No.1856 of 2012 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (SCCH-5), Bengaluru is set aside. Parties are reserved liberty to examine the witnesses and also to produce additional documents for consideration of their case. To enable the Tribunal to consider the case of the parties and pass orders afresh, parties are directed to appear before the tribunal without waiting for any notice in this regard on 31st August, 2019. Appeal is allowed and remanded.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE lnn