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.7251 OF 2013 (MV) BETWEEN:
VISHWANATHA S/O SHYAMARAYA ACHARYA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS SOUPARNIKA NILAYA VIJAYANAGAR EXTENSION HASSAN TALUK, HASSA DISTRICT 573 201 (BY SRI. GIRISH B. BALADARE, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE MANAGER BAJAJ ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD. 2ND FLOOR, SRILAKSHMI COMPLEX OPP BSNL BHAVAN B.M. ROAD HASSAN 573 201 2. MAHESH S/O GOPALACHAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS KIANI NILAYA, SOCIETY ROAD 2ND CROSS, NEAR GANDHI BAZAR HASSAN 573 201 ... APPELLANT ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.03.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.1384 OF 2010 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT-2, HASSAN, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PN FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T For the injuries suffered in the road traffic accident that took place on 09th August, 2009 when the injured and his brother-in-law were going near Heddurga cross and at that time the rider of motorcycle bearing registration No.KA 13 R 5584 being driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the pr and the impact of which the injured suffered injuries on his right and also suffered fracture. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Hassan, by its judgment dated 30th March, 2012 passed in MVC No.1384 of 2010 dismissed the claim petition. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition, this appeal is filed seeking to allow the claim petition and to award suitable compensation.
2. The Tribunal, after service of notice on the respondent, has framed three issues for its consideration of which the issue No.1 is whether the petitioner proves that on 09.08.2009 at about 6.,00 am near Heddurga cross, NH 48 the rider of motorcycle bearing registration No.KA 13 R 5584 drove the same with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the petitioner, due to which the pr sustained grievous injuries? and answered the same in negative. The Tribunal has assigned reasons at paragraph 12 of the judgment. The same is sound and proper and there is no infirmity found or the appellant has made out any ground to allow the appeal. Appeal accordingly stands dismissed.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE lnn