Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Controller vs Srishail S/O. Hanamappa Kumbar on 19 January, 2022
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS TH 19 T H DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
M.F.A. No.23945/2013(MV)
BET WEEN
THE DIV IS IONAL CONT ROLLER,
NEKRTC, HOSPET,
PRESENT LY REPRESENTED B Y ITS
CHIEF LAW OFFCIER, CENT RAL OFFICE,
SARAGE SADAN, GU LB ARGA. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI PRAKASH N.HOSAMANI, ADV.)
AND
SRISHA IL S/O HANAMAPPA KU MB AR,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: MOT OR WINDING WORK,
R/O KALADAGI VIL LAGE,
TQ AND DIST: BAGALKOT. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI ANAND R.KOLLI, ADVOCATE)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEA L IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEH ICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST
THE J UDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.06.2013 PASS ED IN
MVC No.420/201 1 ON THE F ILE OF MEMB ER, MACT.NO.III
BAGALKOT, AWARDING T HE COMPENSAT ION OF `
1,36,280/- WITH INT EREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM
THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZ ATION.
THIS APPEA L COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, TH IS DAY
THE COU RT DELIVERED THE FOLL OWING:
2
JUDGMENT
The owner of the offend ing bus bearing
registration No.KA-34/F-897 has preferred this appeal
challenging the judgment and award d ated 14.06.2013
passed by MACT No.III Bag alkot, in MVC No.420/2011,
on the g round of liability.
2. Brief facts of the case that would be
relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition
are, on 01.01.2011 at about 5.30 p.m., when the
claimant was riding his motorcycle bearing
registration No.KA-29/Q-9074 from Tulasigeri to
Kaladagi, when he reached near Shellikeri cross on
Bagalkot-Lokapur State Highway No.20, a KSRTC bus
bearing registration No.KA-34/F-897 which was
driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner,
dashed against the motorcycle of the claimant from
its rear side and as a result, the claimant fell on the
road and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately
thereafter, the claimant was shifted to Dr.Kerudi
Hospital, Bagalkot, wherein he was treated as
inpatient for about 30 days. The claimant had filed
claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of
`7,50,000/- with interest from the respondent. The
Tribunal partly allowed the said claim petition
awarding compensation of `1,36,280/- with interest at
6% per annum from the date of petition till
realization and saddled the liability to pay the
compensation on the respondent, who is the owner-
cum-internal insurer of the offending bus bearing
registration No.KA-34/F-897. Being aggrieved by the
said judgment, in so far as it relates to saddling the
entire liability on the owner of the offending bus, this
appeal is filed.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits
that the Tribunal has erred in not attributing any
contributory negligence on the claimant. He submits
that the claimant admittedly did not possess any
driving license to ride the motor cycle, and therefore,
the Tribunal ought to have held the claimant guilty of
contributory negligence. He refers to the spot
panchanama and the sketch which is part of the
charge sheet and submits that the Tribunal ought to
have attributed contributory negligence even on the
rider of the motor cycle.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent has
argued in support of the impugned judgment and
award and prays to dismiss the appeal.
5. The accident in question is not in dispute,
so also the involvement of the offending bus bearing
registration No.KA-34/F-897 in the said accident. The
police after investigation have filed the charge sheet
as against the driver of the offending bus for the
offences punishable under Sections 279 & 338 of IPC.
The charge sheet is filed against the claimant who is
the rider only for the offence under Section 3 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, read with Rule 181 of the Motor
Vehicles Rules. Therefore, it is very clear that the
charge sheet had been filed by the police as against
the rider of the motor cycle only for the reason that
he did not possess valid driving license at the time of
the accident.
6. In so far as the rash and negligent driving
of the vehicle which had involved in the accident, the
charge sheet is filed only as against the driver of the
offending bus. The appellant has not led any evidence
before the Tribunal to prove that the claimant who
was the rider of the motor cycle had also contributed
to the accident in question. In the absence of any
contra evidence to prove that the claimant who is the
rider of motor cycle had also contributed to the
accident in question, the claimant cannot be held
guilty of contributory negligence. In addition to the
same, it is not in dispute that the offending bus had
dashed against the motor cycle in which the claimant
was traveling from the rear side. Therefore, it is very
clear that the cause for the accident was the
offending bus which was driven in a rash and
negligent manner by its driver. Merely for the reason
that the rider of the motor cycle who is the claimant
in the present case did not possess valid driving
license as on the date of the accident, it cannot be a
ground to attribute contributory negligence on him, if
the material evidence available on record would go to
show that the accident had caused solely in view of
the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle.
7. Under the circumstances, I am of the
considered view that the Tribunal was fully justified
in saddling the entire liability to pay compensation
amount on the owner of the offending bus. The
impugned judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal even in respect of awarding compensation is
just and proper and on an overall appreciation of the
entire evidence available on record, I find no
illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment
and award passed by the Tribunal, and therefore, the
same does not call for interference by this Court. I
find no merit in this appeal filed by the owner of the
offending bus, and therefore, the appeal is
accordingly dismissed.
8. The amount in deposit is directed to be
returned to the Tribunal along with the records for the
purpose of disbursement of the compensation amount.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AC/K K
