SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

NARASAMMA – Appellant
Versus
LOHIT KUMAR – Respondent
MFA 4638/2016



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2021

PRESENT

THE HON9BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA

AND

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4638 OF 2016 (MV)

BETWEEN:

1. Narasamma

W/o late Chikkanna

Aged about 46 years

2. Vasantha Kumar

S/o late Chikkanna

Aged about 21 years

3. Narasimha Murthy

S/o late Chikkanna

Aged about 17 years

The 3rd appellant is minor

Represented by his natural

Guardian and mother first

Appellant.

All are residents of

Havinamadagu

Madhugiri Taluk

Now R/at Nelahal Village

Tumkur Taluk-572 101.

2

...Appellants

(By Shri Shantharaj K, Advocate)

AND:

1. Lohit Kumar

S/o Manjunatha

Aged about 41 years

R/at No.245, 8th Main

Doddabetta Halli

Chowdeshwari Layout

Vidyaranyapura

Bengaluru-560 097.

2. The Manager

Reliance General Insurance

Company Ltd

S M Tower, 2nd Floor

11th Main, 3rd Block

Jayanagara

Bengaluru-560 011.

3. Sreerangappa

S/o late Halli Rangappa

Aged about 46 years

R/at Badavanahalli

Village and Post

Dodderi Hobli

Madhugiri Taluk-572 132.

...Respondents

(by Shri B Pradeep, Advocate for R2;

Vide Order dated 01.12.2016 Notice to R1 dispensed with;

Vide Order dated 29.03.2021 Notice to R3 held sufficient)

3

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section

173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and

award dated 11.03.2016 passed in MVC No.652 of 2015 on the

file of the VI Additional District Judge, Additional MACT, Tumkur,

partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking

enhancement of compensation.

This Miscellaneous First appeal coming on for Admission,

this day, INDIRESH J., delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the claimants against the

judgment and award dated 11th March, 2016 passed in MVC

No.652 of 2015 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge and

Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tumkur (for short

hereinafter referred to as the <Tribunal=) seeking enhancement

of compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal

are referred to as per their rank and status before the Tribunal.

3. It is the case of the claimants that on 01st December,

2014, the husband of the claimant No.1-Chikkanna was

travelling in the Tractor-Trailer bearing Registration No.KA-

06/TA-3254-3255 on Sira-Tumkur NH-48 road and when the

tractor reached near Nelahal Circle, a Car bearing registration

4

No.KA-53/P-351 dashed to the tractor as a result of which

husband of the claimant No.1 sustained injuries and died in the

hospital. On account of the death of said Chikkanna, the

claimants have suffered both mental and financial loss and

therefore have preferred claim petition in MVC No.652 of 2015

on the file of the Tribunal, seeking compensation.

4. After service of summons, first respondent remained

absent and was placed ex-parte. The second respondent filed

written statement denying the averments made in the claim

petition, however, admits the issuance of insurance policy

covering the risk of the offending vehicle subject to the policy

conditions. Respondent No.3 filed written statement denying the

averments made in the claim petition and had taken a specific

contention that the accident occurred due to the rash and

negligent driving of the car.

5. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal formulated issues

for its consideration. Claimant No.1 was examined as PW1 and

she has marked six documents as Exhibits P1 and P6.

Respondents have examined two witnesses as RW1 and RW2

5

and marked two documents as Exhibits R1 and R2. The

Tribunal, after considering the material on record, allowed the

claim

petition

in

part

and

awarded

compensation

of

Rs.5,70,104/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from

the date of petition till its realisation. Insofar as liability is

concerned, the Tribunal apportioned the negligence 50% each on

both the vehicles i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top