Karnataka High Court
Mr Abdul Ameer vs Mr Aslam Farvez on 4 July, 2024
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:25377
MFA No. 4167/2018
C/W MFA Nos. 4169/2018, 4172/2018,
4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018,
365/2023, 366/ 2023, 367/ 2023,
368/ 2023, 377/ 2023, 381/ 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4167 OF 2018 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NOs. 4169/2018
4172/2018, 4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018,
365 OF 2023, 366/2023, 367/2023, 368/2023,
377 OF 2023, 381 2023 (MV-I)
MFA NO.4167/2018:
BETWEEN:
1. MR. ISMAIL
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
S/O IJJABBA
2. MRS. AWAMMA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
W/O ISMAIL.
Digitally
signed by
NANDINI MS 3. MRS. SHABANA
Location: AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
HIGH
COURT OF D/O ISMAIL.
KARNATAKA
4. MRS. MUSHRATH
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
D/O ISMAIL.
ALL ARE R/AT CELL TRACK
KRISHNAPURA, KATIPALLA
MANGALORE - 575 030.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT, ADV.)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:25377
MFA No. 4167/2018
C/W MFA Nos. 4169/2018, 4172/2018,
4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018,
365/2023, 366/ 2023, 367/ 2023,
368/ 2023, 377/ 2023, 381/ 2023
AND:
1. MR. ASLAM FARVEZ
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
S/O ABDUL KHADAR
R/AT D.NO.2/34, SITE NO. 356,
KATIPALLA, MANGALORE - 575 030.
2. SRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
418005-E-8, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA,
SITAPURA, JAIPURA, RAJASTHAN - 302 022
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PANDURANGA G, ADV., FOR R-1;
SRI B. PRADEEP, ADV., FOR R-2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.09.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1250/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE M.A.C.T. AND III ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALORE, DAKSHINA KANNADA(c/c),
DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
MFA NO.4169/2018:
BETWEEN:
1. MR. HAMEED
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
S/O HASANABBA.
2. MRS. HATEEJAMMA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
W/O HAMEED.
3. MR. ASIF
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
S/O HAMEED.
4. MR. IMTHIYAZ
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
S/O HAMEED.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:25377
MFA No. 4167/2018
C/W MFA Nos. 4169/2018, 4172/2018,
4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018,
365/2023, 366/ 2023, 367/ 2023,
368/ 2023, 377/ 2023, 381/ 2023
5. MRS. RUKSANA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
D/O HAMEED.
6. MR. SHAHID
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
S/O HAMEED.
7. MR. AFREEZ
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
S/O HAMEED.
ALL ARE R/AT NEAR CHOKKABETTU
MASJID, KATIPALLA, MANGALORE - 575 030.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT, ADV.)
AND:
1. MR. ASLAM FARVEZ
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
S/O ABDUL KHADAR
R/AT D.NO.2/34, SITE NO. 356,
KATIPALLA, MANGALORE - 575 030.
2. SRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
418005-E-8, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA,
SITAPURA, JAIPURA, RAJASTHAN - 302 022
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PANDURANGA G, ADV., FOR R-1;
SRI B. PRADEEP, ADV., FOR R-2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.09.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1249/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE M.A.C.T. AND III ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALORE, DAKSHINA KANNADA,
DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:25377
MFA No. 4167/2018
C/W MFA Nos. 4169/2018, 4172/2018,
4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018,
365/2023, 366/ 2023, 367/ 2023,
368/ 2023, 377/ 2023, 381/ 2023
MFA NO.4172/2018:
BETWEEN:
MR. MOHAMMED JAHID
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
S/O HASANABBA
R/AT GAL-49, KATIPALLA
KRISHNBAPURA, SURATHKAL
MANGALORE - 575 014. ....APPELLANT
(BY SRI PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT, ADV.)
AND:
1. MR. ASLAM FARVEZ
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
S/O ABDUL KHADAR
R/AT D.NO.2/34, SITE NO. 356,
KATIPALLA, MANGALORE - 575 030.
2. SRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
418005-E-8, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA,
SITAPURA, JAIPURA, RAJASTHAN - 302 022
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PANDURANGA G, ADV., FOR R-1;
SRI B. PRADEEP, ADV., FOR R-2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.09.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1200/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE M.A.C.T. AND III ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALORE, D.K., DISMISSING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
MFA NO.4173/2018:
BETWEEN:
MR. AFRID
AGED 18 YEARS
S/O LATE ABBUBOKKAR
R/AT GL-49, CHOKKABUTTU
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:25377
MFA No. 4167/2018
C/W MFA Nos. 4169/2018, 4172/2018,
4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018,
365/2023, 366/ 2023, 367/ 2023,
368/ 2023, 377/ 2023, 381/ 2023
KATIPALLA, KRISHNAPURA
MANGALORE - 575 014. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT, ADV.)
AND:
1. MR. ASLAM FARVEZ
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
S/O ABDUL KHADAR
R/AT D.NO.2/34, SITE NO. 356,
KATIPALLA, MANGALORE - 575 030.
2. SRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
418005-E-8, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA,
SITAPURA, JAIPURA, RAJASTHAN - 302 022
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PANDURANGA G, ADV., FOR R-1;
SRI B. PRADEEP, ADV., FOR R-2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.09.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1197/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE M.A.C.T. AND III ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALORE, DAKSHINA KANNADA,
DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
MFA NO.4175/2018:
BETWEEN:
MR. NADEEM
AGED 21 YEARS
S/O LATE ABBOBOKKAR
R/AT RESHMA MANZIL
CHOKKABETTU, 8TH BLOCK
SURATHKAL, MANGALORE - 575 014.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT, ADV.)
AND:
1. MR. ASLAM FARVEZ
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
S/O ABDUL KHADAR
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:25377
MFA No. 4167/2018
C/W MFA Nos. 4169/2018, 4172/2018,
4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018,
365/2023, 366/ 2023, 367/ 2023,
368/ 2023, 377/ 2023, 381/ 2023
R/AT D.NO.2/34, SITE NO. 356,
KATIPALLA, MANGALORE - 575 030.
2. SRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
418005-E-8, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA,
SITAPURA, JAIPURA, RAJASTHAN - 302 022
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PANDURANGA G, ADV., FOR R-1;
SRI B. PRADEEP, ADV., FOR R-2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.09.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1195/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE M.A.C.T. AND III ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALORE, D.K., DISMISSING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
MFA NO.4176/2018:
BETWEEN:
1. MRS. RAZIYA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
W/O ASHRAF.
2. MR. ISMAIL
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
S/O IJJABBA
3. MRS. AWAMMA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
W/O ISMAIL.
4. MRS. SHABANA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
D/O ISMAIL.
5. MRS. MUSHRATH
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
D/O ISMAIL.
ALL ARE R/AT CELL TRACK
KRISHNAPURA, KATIPALLA
MANGALORE - 575 030.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT, ADV.)
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:25377
MFA No. 4167/2018
C/W MFA Nos. 4169/2018, 4172/2018,
4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018,
365/2023, 366/ 2023, 367/ 2023,
368/ 2023, 377/ 2023, 381/ 2023
AND:
1. MR. ASLAM FARVEZ
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
S/O ABDUL KHADAR
R/AT D.NO.2/34, SITE NO. 356,
KATIPALLA, MANGALORE - 575 030.
2. SRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
418005-E-8, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA,
SITAPURA, JAIPURA, RAJASTHAN - 302 022
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PANDURANGA G, ADV., FOR R-1;
SRI B. PRADEEP, ADV., FOR R-2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.09.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.773/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE M.A.C.T. AND III ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALORE, D.K (c/c), DISMISSING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
MFA NO.365/2023:
BETWEEN:
MR. IMRAN
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O B.A. LATHEEF
R/AT SITE NO.125
8TH BLOCK, CHOKKABETTU
SURATHKAL, MANGALORE -575 104.
...APPELANT
(BY SRI PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT, ADV.)
AND:
1. MR. ASLAM FARVEZ
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
S/O ABDUL KHADAR
R/AT D.NO.2/34, SITE NO. 356,
KATIPALLA, MANGALORE - 575 030.
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:25377
MFA No. 4167/2018
C/W MFA Nos. 4169/2018, 4172/2018,
4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018,
365/2023, 366/ 2023, 367/ 2023,
368/ 2023, 377/ 2023, 381/ 2023
2. SRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
418005-E-8, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA,
SITAPURA, JAIPURA, RAJASTHAN - 302 022
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ARUN KUMAR R, ADV., FOR R-1;
SRI B. PRADEEP, ADV., FOR R-2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.09.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1198/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE M.A.C.T. AND III ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALORE, DAKSHINA KANNADA,
DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
MFA NO.366/2023:
BETWEEN:
MR. MOHAMMAD FAIZAL
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
S/O ABDUL RAZAK
R/AT RESHMA MANZIL
CHOKKABETTU, 8TH BLOCK
SURATHKAL, MANGALORE - 575 014.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT, ADV.)
AND:
1. MR. ASLAM FARVEZ
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
S/O ABDUL KHADAR
R/AT D.NO.2/34, SITE NO. 356,
KATIPALLA, MANGALORE - 575 030.
2. SRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
418005-E-8, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA,
SITAPURA, JAIPURA, RAJASTHAN - 302 022
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ARUN KUMAR R, ADV., FOR R-1;
SRI B. PRADEEP, ADV., FOR R-2)
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:25377
MFA No. 4167/2018
C/W MFA Nos. 4169/2018, 4172/2018,
4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018,
365/2023, 366/ 2023, 367/ 2023,
368/ 2023, 377/ 2023, 381/ 2023
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.09.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.11194/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE, M.A.C.T. AND III ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALORE, D.K., DISMISSING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
MFA NO.367/2023:
BETWEEN:
MR. ABDUL AMEER
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O HASANABBA
R/AT GL-49, KATIPALLA
KRISHNBAPURA, SURATHKAL
MANGALORE - 575 014.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT, ADV.)
AND:
1. MR. ASLAM FARVEZ
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
S/O ABDUL KHADAR
R/AT D.NO.2/34, SITE NO. 356,
KATIPALLA, MANGALORE - 575 030.
2. SRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
418005-E-8, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA,
SITAPURA, JAIPURA, RAJASTHAN - 302 022
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ARUN KUMAR R, ADV., FOR R-1;
SRI B. PRADEEP, ADV., FOR R-2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.09.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1196/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE M.A.C.T. AND III ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALORE, D.K., DISMISSING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25377
MFA No. 4167/2018
C/W MFA Nos. 4169/2018, 4172/2018,
4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018,
365/2023, 366/ 2023, 367/ 2023,
368/ 2023, 377/ 2023, 381/ 2023
MFA NO.368/2023:
BETWEEN:
MR. SHAMEER
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O ABBAS
R/AT 8TH BLOCK, CHOKKABETTU
KRISHNAPURA, SURATHKAL
MANGALORE - 575 014.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT, ADV.)
AND:
1. MR. ASLAM FARVEZ
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
S/O ABDUL KHADAR
R/AT D.NO.2/34, SITE NO. 356,
KATIPALLA, MANGALORE - 575 030.
2. SRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
418005-E-8, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA,
SITAPURA, JAIPURA, RAJASTHAN - 302 022
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ARUN KUMAR R, ADV., FOR R-1;
SRI B. PRADEEP, ADV., FOR R-2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.09.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1193/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE M.A.C.T. AND III ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALORE, D.K., DISMISSING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
MFA NO.377/2023:
BETWEEN:
MR. MOHAMMED ASHRAF
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O ABDUL M
R/AT NEAR BADRIYA HOTEL
RAILWAY BRIDGE, KANA KATLA
SURATHKAL, MANGALORE - 575 014.
...APPELLANT
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25377
MFA No. 4167/2018
C/W MFA Nos. 4169/2018, 4172/2018,
4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018,
365/2023, 366/ 2023, 367/ 2023,
368/ 2023, 377/ 2023, 381/ 2023
(BY SRI PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT, ADV.)
AND:
1. MR. ASLAM FARVEZ
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
S/O ABDUL KHADAR
R/AT D.NO.2/34, SITE NO. 356,
KATIPALLA, MANGALORE - 575 030.
2. SRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
418005-E-8, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA,
SITAPURA, JAIPURA, RAJASTHAN - 302 022
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ARUN KUMAR R, ADV., FOR R-1;
SRI B. PRADEEP, ADV., FOR R-2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.09.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1201/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE M.A.C.T. AND III ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALORE, D.K., DISMISSING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
MFA NO.381/2023:
BETWEEN:
MR. AZARUDDIN
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O HASANABBA
R/AT GL-49, NEAR MASIJID
8TH BLOCK, CHOKKABETTU
KATIPALLA, SURATHKAL
MANGALORE - 575 014.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT, ADV.)
AND:
1. MR. ASLAM FARVEZ
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
S/O ABDUL KHADAR
R/AT D.NO.2/34, SITE NO. 356,
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25377
MFA No. 4167/2018
C/W MFA Nos. 4169/2018, 4172/2018,
4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018,
365/2023, 366/ 2023, 367/ 2023,
368/ 2023, 377/ 2023, 381/ 2023
KATIPALLA, MANGALORE - 575 030.
2. SRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
418005-E-8, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA,
SITAPURA, JAIPURA, RAJASTHAN - 302 022
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ARUN KUMAR R, ADV., FOR R-1;
SRI B. PRADEEP, ADV., FOR R-2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.09.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1199/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE M.A.C.T. AND III ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALORE, D.K., DISMISSING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
These appeals are filed by the claimants under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for setting aside the judgment and award dated 30.09.2015 passed in MVC No.1193/2011, MVC No.1194/2011, MVC No.1195/2011, MVC No.1196/2011, MVC 1197/2011, MVC No.1198/2011, MVC No.1199/2011, MVC No.1200/2011, MVC No.1201/2011, MVC No.1249/2011, MVC No.1250/2011 & MVC No.773/2011 by the Court of III Addl. Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Mangaluru, D.K, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal').
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25377 MFA No. 4167/2018 C/W MFA Nos. 4169/2018, 4172/2018, 4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018, 365/2023, 366/ 2023, 367/ 2023, 368/ 2023, 377/ 2023, 381/ 2023
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 - Insurance Company.
3. The case of the petitioners before the Tribunal was that on 15.02.2011 at about 12.15 p.m, the petitioners and the deceased persons were proceeding along with others in a Tata Siyar Car bearing registration No.KA-18-P-8323. When the car reached to a place called Padupanambur minor bridge, at that time, pick up vehicle bearing registration No.KA-19-A-9685 came from same direction in a rash and negligent manner on NH-17, dashed to the above said Car from hind right side. Due to which, the car was fell down to a ditch. As a result, the petitioners & other inmates sustained grievous injury and some of the inmates were died in the said accident. The police registered FIR against unknown pick up vehicle and subsequently police seized the vehicle and filed charge sheet. Accordingly, claimants have filed the claim petitions claiming compensation on various heads for the injuries
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25377 MFA No. 4167/2018 C/W MFA Nos. 4169/2018, 4172/2018, 4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018, 365/2023, 366/ 2023, 367/ 2023, 368/ 2023, 377/ 2023, 381/ 2023 sustained by them and also legal representatives of deceased who died in the accident have filed claim petitions.
4. Respondent No.1 - owner of the vehicle has appeared before the Tribunal and filed his written statement by denying rash and negligent driving of the driver, the injury sustained by the claimants and death of the deceased. He also submits that the compensation claimed is exorbitant and excessive and contended that this accident was occurred due to negligent driving of the driver of Tata Siyar Car but not the driver of the pick up vehicle. It is also contended that the driver of the Siyar vehicle had applied sudden brake on the middle of the road and due to sudden stopping the car without giving signal, there was collusion between the pick up vehicle and Siyar vehicle and it is also contended that petitions are bad for non joinder of proper parties and further denied the other averments of the petition and has contended that the driver was holding valid license as on
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25377 MFA No. 4167/2018 C/W MFA Nos. 4169/2018, 4172/2018, 4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018, 365/2023, 366/ 2023, 367/ 2023, 368/ 2023, 377/ 2023, 381/ 2023 the date of accident and the vehicle was insured with respondent No.2. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the claim petitions.
5. Respondent No.2 - Insurance company has also filed statement of objection by denying all the averments made in the claim petitions and submits that the petitioners have suppressed the fact that they have filed petitions for unlawful gain and denied the accident and injury sustained by the claimants and death of the deceased. However, they admitted the fact that the vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 and if any liability, interest are not more than 6%. Hence, prays for dismissal of the claim petitions.
6. Based upon the pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:
ISSUES IN MVC.NOS.1193,2011, 1194/2011, 1195,2011, 1196/2011, 1197/2011, 1198/2011, 1199/2011, 1200/2011 AND MVC.NO.1201/2011
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25377 MFA No. 4167/2018 C/W MFA Nos. 4169/2018, 4172/2018, 4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018, 365/2023, 366/ 2023, 367/ 2023, 368/ 2023, 377/ 2023, 381/ 2023
1) Whether the petitioner proves that accident occurred on 15.02.2011 at about 12.15 p.m, near Padupanambur minor bridge, Padupanambur village, Mangalore was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of pick up bearing Reg.No.KA-19-A-9685 and he sustained injuries in the accident?
2. Whether the respondents prove that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tata Siyar Car bearing Reg.No.KA-18-P-8323?
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?
4. What order or award?
ISSUES IN MVC. NO.1249/2011
1. Whether the petitioners prove that accident occurred on 15.02.2011 at about 12.15 p.m, near Padupanambur minor bridge, Padupanambur village, Mangalore was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of pick up bearing Reg.No.KA-19-A-9685 and due to
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25377 MFA No. 4167/2018 C/W MFA Nos. 4169/2018, 4172/2018, 4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018, 365/2023, 366/ 2023, 367/ 2023, 368/ 2023, 377/ 2023, 381/ 2023 the accident Imran succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident?
2. Whether the respondents prove that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tata Siyar Car bearing Reg.No.KA-18-P-8323?
3. Whether the petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties?
4. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?
5. What order or award?
ISSUES IN MVC. NO.1250/2011
1. Whether the petitioners prove that accident occurred on 15.02.2011 at about 12.15 p.m, near Padupanambur minor bridge, Padupanambur village, Mangalore was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of pick up bearing Reg.No.KA-19-A-9685 and due to the accident Asif succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident?
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25377 MFA No. 4167/2018 C/W MFA Nos. 4169/2018, 4172/2018, 4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018, 365/2023, 366/ 2023, 367/ 2023, 368/ 2023, 377/ 2023, 381/ 2023
2. Whether the respondents prove that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tata Siyar Car bearing Reg.No.KA-18-P-8323?
3. Whether the petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties?
4. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?
5. What order or award?
ISSUES IN MVC. NO.773/2011
1. Whether the petitioners prove that the deceased Ashraf had sustained certain fatal injuries in a road traffic accident said to have been occurred on 15.02.2011 at about 12.15 p.m, near Padupanambur minor bridge, Padupanambur village, Mangalore was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of pick up bearing Reg.No.KA-19-A-9685?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom they are entitled to?
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25377 MFA No. 4167/2018 C/W MFA Nos. 4169/2018, 4172/2018, 4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018, 365/2023, 366/ 2023, 367/ 2023, 368/ 2023, 377/ 2023, 381/ 2023
3. What decree or order?
7. The petitioners in order to prove their case have examined themselves as PWs.1 to Pws.13 and they got marked 118 documents as Exs.P1 to P118. On the other hand, respondent No.1- owner of the vehicle did not led any evidence. However, respondent No.2 - Insurance Company examined Police Inspector as RW1 and Legal Officer of Insurance Company as RW2 and they got marked one document as Ex.R1 - Insurance Policy.
8. After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal answered issue No.1 in all cases in the negative and issues Nos.2 and 3 in the affirmative in favour of respondent No.2 - Insurance Company and issue No.4 in the negative and dismissed all the claim petitions vide impugned judgment and award dated 30.09.2015. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petitions, the claimants are before this Court.
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25377 MFA No. 4167/2018 C/W MFA Nos. 4169/2018, 4172/2018, 4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018, 365/2023, 366/ 2023, 367/ 2023, 368/ 2023, 377/ 2023, 381/ 2023
9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has seriously contended that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the pick up van and driver of the van himself examined as RW1 and has admitted in his written statement that due to sudden stopping of the vehicle by the driver of the Tata Siyar Car, there was collusion with car, due to which the accident was occurred and he also taken contention that the negligence is on part of the driver of Tata Siyar Car, where the injured and deceased were traveling. But there was no evidence let in by respondent No.1. However, the police investigate the matter and filed charge sheet. The charge sheet is not challenged by the respondents before the competent authority. There is no other eye witness examined by respondent No.2 to disprove the case of the claimants. The Tribunal committed error in dismissing the entire claim petitions merely because the owner and insurer of Tata Siyar Car was not a party and hence
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25377 MFA No. 4167/2018 C/W MFA Nos. 4169/2018, 4172/2018, 4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018, 365/2023, 366/ 2023, 367/ 2023, 368/ 2023, 377/ 2023, 381/ 2023 prayed to set-aside the findings on issue Nos.1, 2 and 3 and remit back the matter before the Tribunal.
10. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 seriously objected the appeals and contended that the Tribunal considering the evidence of RWs.1 and 2 and also the evidence of claimants had rightly dismissed the claim petitions as there is no damage found on the vehicle of pickup van. Such being the case, the very involvement of the vehicle of the respondent was doubtful. The owner of the pick up vehicle lives in the same of village of the injured. There was collusion between them and therefore a false case has been filed against the driver of the pick up van and as there is no damage caused to the vehicle, the question of presuming the vehicle was involved in the accident does not arise. Even otherwise, the owner and insurer of the Tata Siyar Car are not made as party. Such being the case, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petitions. Hence, prays for dismissal of the appeals.
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25377 MFA No. 4167/2018 C/W MFA Nos. 4169/2018, 4172/2018, 4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018, 365/2023, 366/ 2023, 367/ 2023, 368/ 2023, 377/ 2023, 381/ 2023
11. Having heard the arguments and perused the records, the points that would arise for my consideration are:
"1. Whether the petitioners prove that the accident dated 15.02.2011 at about 12.15 p.m, near Padupanambur Bridge, occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of pick up van bearing registration No.KA-19- A-9685 and due to which the injured sustained injuries and some of the persons have died in the accident?
2. Whether the judgment of dismissal passed by the Tribunal calls for interference?
3. What order?"
12. On perusal of records, it is revealed that claimants have examined themselves as PWs1 to 13 in claim petitions. PW1 is the complainant who filed complaint before the police and also one of the injured in this case. He has categorically stated that he was traveling in Tata Siyar Car bearing registration No.KA-18-P-8323
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25377 MFA No. 4167/2018 C/W MFA Nos. 4169/2018, 4172/2018, 4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018, 365/2023, 366/ 2023, 367/ 2023, 368/ 2023, 377/ 2023, 381/ 2023 along with other inmates on 15.02.2011, when they reached near padupanambur Bridge, at that time, a pick up van bearing registration No.KA-19-A-9685 came behind and touched the vehicle on Mangaluru - Udupi Highway. Due to which the vehicle of the claimants had fell into the ditch and dashed to a tree. As a result, three of the inmates of the Car died and others have sustained injury. He also stated that immediately they have been shifted to hospital where the police have obtained statement and registered FIR. After investigation, the police have filed charge sheet.
13. It is pertinent to note that respondent No.1 who is the owner of the pick up van has taken a specific plea that the accident was occurred due to negligent driving of the driver of Tata Siyar Car and he has stated that while going on main highway, the driver of the Tata Siyar Car suddenly applied brake. Due to which, the pick up van dashed to the Tata Siyar Car. As a result, Tata Siyar Car fell down to a ditch and met with an accident. This
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25377 MFA No. 4167/2018 C/W MFA Nos. 4169/2018, 4172/2018, 4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018, 365/2023, 366/ 2023, 367/ 2023, 368/ 2023, 377/ 2023, 381/ 2023 admission made by respondent No.1 in written statement was not disputed or accepted by the Tribunal. Respondent No.1 has not led any evidence to prove that accident was occurred solely due to negligent driving of the Tata Siyar Car but not due to driver of the pick up van. However, respondent No.2 examined RW.1 wherein he has stated that there is no visible damage on pickup vehicle. Therefore, it is contended that there is no chance of involvement of offending vehicle in the accident. In this regard, this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court in similar case has held that merely there is no visible damage on the vehicle that itself is not a ground to reject the claim of the claimant or any contributory negligent on part of the driver of the vehicle which was met with an accident. Investigation was done by the Police and they have filed charge sheet. The charge sheet was not challenged by any of the respondents before the court of law. That apart, proving the accident before the Tribunal or in civil cases is
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25377 MFA No. 4167/2018 C/W MFA Nos. 4169/2018, 4172/2018, 4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018, 365/2023, 366/ 2023, 367/ 2023, 368/ 2023, 377/ 2023, 381/ 2023 based upon the degree of preponderance of probabilities and not on the degree of beyond all reasonable doubt as like in criminal cases. It is well settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the catena of decisions that even the driver of the offending vehicle was not exonerated in criminal cases or acquitted or convicted that will not binding on the Tribunal or civil court while deciding the issue of negligence. Such being the case, the Tribunal has committed an error in holding merely there is no visible damage on the pick up vehicle which was met with an accident and there is no negligence on part of the driver.
14. The claimants were examined as PWs.1 to 13. Some of them were injured eye witnesses and they have categorically stated that accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tata Siyar Car. Such being the case, there are no eye witnesses and injured witnesses are not correct. That apart, the insurance company has not made any separate investigation through Investigation Officer or not
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25377 MFA No. 4167/2018 C/W MFA Nos. 4169/2018, 4172/2018, 4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018, 365/2023, 366/ 2023, 367/ 2023, 368/ 2023, 377/ 2023, 381/ 2023 examined any injured or any eye witnesses or either any toll department, to show pick up vehicle was not proceeding on the road and also not examined any RTO officer to show that pick up vehicle was not having permit on this road. Such being the case, merely on the evidence of respondent No.2 - insurance Company that no visible damage on the vehicle that itself is not a ground to give negative finding as against the evidence of PWs.1 to 13 especially PW.3 and the entire police documents depicts that Ex.P.1 is copy complaint/FIR, Ex.P3 is spot mahazar, Ex.P6 is charge sheet. Therefore, I am of the opinion that findings of the Tribunal in issue No.1 is not correct in holding that this accident was not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 pick up van.
15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of DINESH KUMAR J ALIAS DINESH J V. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS. (2018) 1 SCC 750 at paragraph No.7 has held as under:
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25377 MFA No. 4167/2018 C/W MFA Nos. 4169/2018, 4172/2018, 4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018, 365/2023, 366/ 2023, 367/ 2023, 368/ 2023, 377/ 2023, 381/ 2023 "7. Insofar as the judgment of the High Court is concerned, the Division Bench has placed a considerable degree of importance on the fact that there was no visible damage to the lorry but that it was the motorcycle which had suffered damage and that there was no eyewitness. We are in agreement with the submission which has been urged on behalf of the appellant that plea of contributory negligence was accepted purely on the basis of conjecture and without any evidence. Once the finding that there was contributory negligence on the part of the appellant is held to be without any basis, the second aspect which weighed both with the Tribunal and the High Court, that the appellant had not produced the driving licence, would be of no relevance. This aspect has been considered in a judgment of this Court in Sudhir Kumar where it was held as follows : (SCC p. 439, paras 9-10) "9. If a person drives a vehicle without a licence, he commits an offence. The same, by itself, in our opinion, may not lead to a finding of negligence as regards the accident.
It has been held by the courts below that it was the driver of the mini truck who was driving rashly and negligently. It is one thing to say that the appellant was not possessing any licence but no finding of fact has been arrived at that he was driving the two- wheeler rashly and negligently. If he was not driving rashly and negligently which contributed to the accident, we fail to see as to how, only because he was not having a licence, he would be held to be guilty of contributory negligence.
10. The matter might have been different if by reason of his rash and negligent driving, the accident had taken place."
16. The Tribunal has wrongly dismissed the claim petitions merely because the owner and insurer of Tata
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25377 MFA No. 4167/2018 C/W MFA Nos. 4169/2018, 4172/2018, 4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018, 365/2023, 366/ 2023, 367/ 2023, 368/ 2023, 377/ 2023, 381/ 2023 Siyar Car are not parties, as offending vehicle belongs to respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 insurer. Such being the case, the findings of the Tribunal is required to be set- aside and I hold that this accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the pick up vehicle bearing registration No.KA-19-A-9685 due to which the appellants have sustained injury and Imran, Asif and Ashraf were died in the accident. The Tribunal also not computed any compensation. Such being the case, it is necessary for this Court to remand the matter back to Tribunal to compute/assess the compensation. Therefore, by setting aside the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER I. The appeals are allowed.
II. The impugned judgment and award dated 30.09.2015 passed in MVC No.1193/2011,
- 29 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25377 MFA No. 4167/2018 C/W MFA Nos. 4169/2018, 4172/2018, 4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018, 365/2023, 366/ 2023, 367/ 2023, 368/ 2023, 377/ 2023, 381/ 2023 MVC No.1194/2011, MVC No.1195/2011, MVC No.1196/2011, MVC No.1197/2011, MVC No.1198/2011, MVC No.1199/2011, MVC No.1200/2011, MVC No.1201/2011, MVC No.1249/2011, MVC No.1250/2011 & MVC No.773/2011 by the Court of III Addl. Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Mangaluru, D.K, is set aside.
III. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration of issue No.1 and compute necessary compensation to claimants in accordance with law and dispose of the matter within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
IV. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 05.08.2024 without awaiting any further notice.
V. Both the parties are given liberty to adduce evidence, both oral and documentary. VI. Registry is directed to transmit the TCR along with copy of this judgment to the Tribunal forthwith.
- 30 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25377 MFA No. 4167/2018 C/W MFA Nos. 4169/2018, 4172/2018, 4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018, 365/2023, 366/ 2023, 367/ 2023, 368/ 2023, 377/ 2023, 381/ 2023 VII. All contentions of the parties are kept open VIII. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE NMS