Back
MOHAMMED WASIM – Appellant
Versus
B N ANANTHA KUMAR – Respondent
MFA 10992/2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL 2021
BEFORE
THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK.S.KINAGI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.10992 OF 2010 (MV)
BETWEEN:
MOHAMMED WASIM, 22 YEARS
S/O LATE MOHAMMED WAZEER
R/AT NO.157, 5TH MAIN
5TH CROSS, SIDDAPURA, JAYANAGAR
3RD BLOCK, BANGALORE-560 017.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI R CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV)
AND:
1.
B.N. ANANTHA KUMAR, 35 YEARS
S/O B.A. NAGARAJ
NO.1008, 7TH A CROSS, 4TH A MAIN
CHIKKADINNE, ATTUR LAYOUT
YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-64.
2.
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
5TH FLOR, VOKKALIGARA BHAVANA
HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE-27
REP: BY BRANCH MANAGER
3.
MR. DHANPAL G, MAJOR
S/O GOVINDA SWAMY R
NO.135, AM ROAD, JOURNALIST COLONY
BANGALORE-02.
&RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R JAI PRAKASH, ADV. FOR R2
V/O DTD. 30.10.2014 NOTICE TO
R1 & R3 ARE D/W)
2
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
06.03.2010, PASSED IN MVC NO.1130/2008, ON THE FILE
OF THE JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER,
MACT, METROPOLITAN AREA, BANGALORE, (SCCH NO.9),
PARTLY
ALLOWING
THE
CLAIM
PETITION
FOR
COMPENSATION
AND
SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT
OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY,
THE
COURT
THROUGH
VIDEO
CONFERENCE
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
The appellant aggrieved by the judgment and
award dated 06.03.2010 passed in MVC.No.1130/2008
by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal,
Bangalore filed this appeal under Section 173(1) of MVC
Act.
2.
The brief facts leading to this case are that
on 29.08.2007 at about 4.30 a.m., when the claimant
was riding his Bajaj scooter bearing registration No.KA-
01-L-2284 along with his friend Syed Yusuf from
Kalasipalya to his residence with care and caution and
3
when they reached near Minerva Circle, LBF road,
Bangalore, a tempo bearing registration No.KA-09-M-
1247 came at a high speed in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed to his motorcycle, due to which he
and his friend sustained grievous injuries. Immediately,
he was shifted to Sanjay Gandhi hospital and after first
aid he was shifted to St. John9s hospital and thereafter
to Bowring hospital on 30.08.2007 and had spent Rs.1
lakhs towards treatment. At the time of accident he was
aged about 20 years and was working as a two wheeler
mechanic at H.K. Motors, Bangalore and was earning
Rs.6,000/- p.m. Due to accident, the claimant is unable
to perform his date to day work. Hence, claimant has
filed claim petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act
claiming compensation of Rs.10 lakh for the injuries
sustained in road traffic accident.
4
3.
Notice was issued by the Tribunal and the
same was served on respondent No.1. Respondent No.1
remained absent and placed ex-parte.
4.
Respondent No.2 appeared and filed written
statement denying the petition averments and it is
contended that the driver of the tempo is not made as a
party and admits for having issued policy in favour of
owner of offending vehicle and further contended that
liability subject to terms and conditions of the policy
and it was denied that the claimant has sustained
grievous injuries and has been spent huge amount
towards treatment. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim
petition.
5.
On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the
Tribunal has framed the following issues;
1.
Whether the petitioner proves that the injuries
sustained by him in Road traffic accident that
occurred on 29.08.07 at about 4.30 a.m. on
LBF road, near Minerva circle, Kalasipalya,
5
Bangalore, was due to rash and driving of the
tempo bearing No.KA-09-M-1247 and as a
result petitioner sustained various injuries as
stated in the wound certificate?
2.
Additional No.1: Whether the respondent No.2
proves that there is contributory negligence on
the part of the rider of the scooter bearing
No.KA-01-L 2284?
3.
Whether
the
petitioner
is
