Karnataka High Court
The Managing Director And vs Mahmad Rafiq S/O. Sattarsab on 13 January, 2022
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13 T H DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
M.F.A. No.100752/2014 (MV)
BET WEEN
THE MANAGING D IRECTOR AND
SELF INSURANCE FUND NWKRTC,
GOKU L ROAD, HUBLI,
REPRES ENTED BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER
.....APPEL LANT
(BY SMT VEENA HEGDE, ADV.)
AND
MAHMAD RAFIQ S/O. SATT ARSAB KARJAGI
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: MASON MESTRI
R/O. B ANKAPU R, TQ: SHIGGAON,
NOW AT ARALESHWAR, TQ: HANGAL
.....RESPONDENT
(R-1 - NOT CLAIMED)
THIS A P PEAL IS FILED U/ SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT 1988,
AGAINST JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT D:25.11.2013, PASSED
IN MVC.NO.93/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDIT IONAL
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIB UNAL AT HANGAL,
AWARDING TH E COMPENSAT ION OF RS.1,75,49 0/- WIT H
INT EREST AT 6% P.A. FROM T HE DATE OF PET IT ION TILL
THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.
THIS AP PEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING ON
INT ERLOCU TORY APPLICAT ION, T HIS DAY THE COU RT
DEL IVERED THE F OLLOW ING:
2
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for appellant on the merits of
the case.
2. The instant appeal is filed by the owner of the
offending bus bearing No.KA-27/F-307 challenging the judgment
and award dated 25.11.2013 passed by the Addl. M.A.C.T.,
Hangal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal', for brevity) in
M.V.C.No.93/2012 awarding compensation of `1,75,490/- to the
claimant in the said case with interest at 6% p.a. from the date
of petition till realization and directing the appellant herein to
deposit the compensation amount.
3. Brief facts of the case that would be relevant for the
purpose of disposal of this appeal are:
The claimant had filed M.V.C.No.93/2012 claiming
compensation of `15,00,000/- from the respondents with regard
to the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident
which had taken place on 17.07.2011. It is the case of the
claimant that on 17.07.2011, at about 2.45 p.m., when he was
carefully riding his motorcycle, the offending bus bearing
registration No.KA-27/F-307 belonging to the respondents,
which was driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver
dashed against the motorcycle and thereby caused the accident,
in which, the claimant had suffered grievous injuries. He was
subsequently treated in a hospital wherein he had undergone
multiple operations. It is under these circumstances, he
subsequently filed a claim petition claiming compensation in
respect of the injuries suffered by him in the road traffic
accident. The Tribunal vide its judgment and award dated
25.11.2013 had partly allowed the claim petition awarding
compensation of `1,75,490/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the
date of petition till realization. Being aggrieved by the same,
the owner of the bus who was saddled with the liability is before
this Court.
4. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the
Tribunal has erred in not taking into consideration the
contributory negligence on the part of the claimant and
therefore, the contributory negligence apportioned in the ratio of
70:30 is bad in law. She submits that at least 50% contributory
negligence ought to have been attributed on the claimant. She
further submits that the charge sheet material would go to show
that the accident had taken place due to the negligence of the
rider. Therefore, she also submitted that the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side.
5. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed
by the learned counsel for appellant and also perused the
material available on record.
6. The accident in question is not disputed and so also
the involvement of the offending bus bearing No.KA-27/F-307
which belongs to the appellant herein. The material on record
would go to show that the claimant had suffered grievous
injuries in the said accident and he was initially treated in a
hospital at Hangal and thereafter wards shifted to KIMS
Hospital, Hubballi, for higher treatment where he was admitted
as an indoor patient and undergone multiple operations. The
claimant had suffered the following injuries in the said accident
as per the wound certificate at Ex.P-3.
1) Laceration over right occipital region 5x1 c.m.
2) Laceration over right Maxilla 1x2 c.m.
3) Tenderness and swelling over right writst.
4) Open crush injury at lower part of thigh 10x5 c.m.
with oozing of blood muscles exposed.
5) Swelling of middle part of right leg.
7. From a perusal of the wound certificate, it is very
clear that the claimant had suffered multiple fractured injuries
on his body. Claimant was a mason by avocation and Tribunal
has taken his notional income at `4,500/- p.m. The doctor who
had treated and examined the claimant had deposed before the
Tribunal that the claimant has suffered disability to the tune of
48% on his right lower limb and considering the same, the
Tribunal has assessed whole body disability at 15%. The
Tribunal there afterwards has proceeded to grant a total
compensation of `2,50,700/-.
8. On re-appreciation of the oral and documentary
evidence available on record, in the light of the injuries
sustained by the claimant and also the prolonged treatment
undergone by him, I am of the considered view that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper.
Insofar as the question of contributory negligence is concerned,
the Tribunal has held the same at 70:30 ratio. The Tribunal has
held that the claimant had to forgo 30% of the compensation
amount towards his contributory negligence. Though the
learned counsel for appellant submitted that the Tribunal ought
to have held that the claimant had contributed at least 50%
towards negligence, in my considered view, having regard to the
fact that the charge sheet was filed as against the driver of the
offending bus and also considering that the respondent-owner of
the offending bus had not produced any material to establish
that the claimant had also contributed to the accident in
question, the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal attributing
30% of the contributory negligence on the claimant cannot be
interfered with. Under the circumstance, I do not find any merit
in this appeal. Accordingly, I decline to entertain this
miscellaneous first appeal and therefore, it is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Na a
