The General Manager vs Aruna W/O Mahaveer Danawade
2022 Latest Caselaw 10196 Kant

                            1




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                     DHARWAD BENCH


           DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

                         BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR


                 MFA NO.21511/2012 (MV)
BETWEEN:

1.     THE GENERAL MANAGER
       KSRTC, DOUBLE ROAD, KH-II,
       SHANTI NAGAR, BENGALURU.

2.     THE MANAGER,
       INTERNAL INSURANCE FUND KSRTC,
       DOUBLE ROAD, KH-II,
       SHANTI NAGAR, BENGALURU,
       REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
       DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NWKRTC
       CHIKODI DIVISION, NEAR CHOUSAN
       COLLEGE, CHIKODI,
       REP. BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
       NWKRTC, HUBBALLI.
                                           ...APPELLANTS.

(BY SHRI S L MATTI, ADVOCATE.)

AND:

1.     ARUNA W/O MAHAVEER DANAWADE
       AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
       R/O. EXAMBA, TQ: CHIKODI,
       DIST: BELAGAVI.

2.     VISHAL S/O. MAHAVEER DANAWADE
       AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE
       R/O.EXAMBA, TQ: CHIKODI,
       DIST: BELAGAVI.
                                          ...RESPONDENTS.

(BY SHRI SANTOSH S HATTIKATAGI, ADVOCATE.)
                                    2




      THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173 (1) OF THE M.V.ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.07.2011,
PASSED IN MVC NO.935/2010, ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER,
MACT AND DISTRICT JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT-I, CHIKODI,
BY DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION, ETC.,.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                           JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and

award dated 22.7.2011, passed by the Fast Track

Court-I and MACT, Chikodi, in MVC No.935/2010. This

appeal is premised on the ground of error committed by

the MACT on liability being fastened on the insurance

company and on exorbitant compensation awarded to

the claimants.

2. Brief facts of the case.

On 10.6.2009 at about 9.30 a.m. while the

deceased was riding his motorcycle bearing

No.KA-23/U-7497 towards Chikodi from Examba on the

left side of the road, a KSRTC bus bearing

No.KA-23/F-351 came in a high speed in a rash and

negligent manner so as to endanger human life and

personal safety of others and dashed against the

motorcycle leading to injuries to the deceased who was

admitted to Civil Hospital, Belagavi and while

undergoing treatment, he succumbed to the injuries.

3. It is the case of the claimants that deceased

was agriculturist and dairy farmer aged 50 years and

was earning monthly income of Rs.10,000/- from dairy

farming along with income of 5-6 lakhs from agriculture.

The claimants were solely dependent on the income of

the deceased and due to the sudden and unfortunate

death of deceased, the claimants are put to difficulty

both emotionally and financially, as the sole bread

winner of the family has passed away due to the rash

and negligent driving by the driver of the bus. Hence

the claimants have filed claim petition seeking

compensation against the respondents.

4. On service of notice, respondents appeared,

filed the statement of objections inter-alia denying the

contents in the claim petition as being exorbitant and

denying the fault of the driver of the bus as the entire

negligence was of the rider of the motorcycle, the

deceased herein that the accident occurred leading to

his death.

5. On the basis of the pleadings, the tribunal

framed relevant issues for consideration. In order to

establish and substantiate the case, claimant No.2

examined himself as PW.2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to

P.9, whereas the driver of the bus himself was

examined as RW.1 and got marked Exs.R.1 to R.4. On

the basis of the material evidence, both oral and

documentary, and on hearing the learned counsel

appearing for both the parties, the tribunal passed the

award granting total compensation of Rs.6,73,000/-

with interest at 9% p.a. and fastened 50% composite

negligence on the deceased and held respondents No.1

and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay the

compensation.

6. It is the vehement contention of the learned

counsel for the corporation that the impugned judgment

and award passed by the tribunal is erroneous and

flawed as it is contrary to the material evidence on

record. Hence the same requires to be set aside. He

further contends that the tribunal has grossly erred in

not considering the fact that the driver of the bus was

not negligent and the entire negligence was that of the

rider of the motorcycle. He also relies on Ex.P.6, which

is the charge sheet laid against both the driver of the

bus as well as rider of the motorcycle, the deceased

herein. He further contends that the tribunal has grossly

erred in fastening 50% of liability on the corporation,

whereas the entire liability ought to have been fastened

on the rider of the motorcycle. On these grounds he

seeks to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment

and award passed against the corporation.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

claimants vehemently contends that the judgment and

award passed by the tribunal is in accordance to law

and the same does not call for interference as the same

is in consonance to the evidence on record both oral and

documentary.

8. Having considered the material evidence

both oral and documentary and the award amount

having been already satisfied, the appeal does not

deserve consideration and the same requires to be

dismissed.

9. It is not in dispute with regard to the fact of

occurrence of accident, involvement of motorcycle as

well as the bus and death of deceased Mahaveer

pursuant to the injuries suffered in the accident. All

these are forthcoming in Exs.P.1 to P.6 produced by

claimant which is not in dispute. Only point for

consideration before this Court is the challenge with

regard to the contributory negligence fastened against

it. The charge sheet having been laid against the driver

of the bus as well as the rider of the motorcycle, it

cannot be said that there is no liability as against driver

of the bus and thereby absolving any liability against

the corporation. The tribunal has considered all these

aspects with regard to age, avocation and income and

arrived at a reasonable compensation to the claimants

who are the legal heirs of the deceased. Though learned

counsel appearing for the corporation has contended

that the 2nd claimant is an adult and being a major is

not entitled to be dependant on the deceased, the

tribunal has already considered the same, as the major

adult would not be a dependent, 50% of the income has

been deducted towards personal and living expenses

which is rightly adopted by the tribunal, which does not

call for interference by this Court.

10. It is the vehement contention of the learned

counsel appearing for the corporation that the tribunal

has assessed income of the deceased at Rs.200/- per

day thereby calculating Rs.6,000/- per month has

awarded excess compensation by taking income on

higher side. But however it is to be noticed that tribunal

has not awarded any amount of compensation towards

future prospects in the present case. The entire

compensation has already been satisfied by the

corporation and the same is withdrawn by the claimant.

I do not find any illegality or perversity in the tribunal

assessing the income of deceased at Rs.6,000/- per

month. Since charge sheet is laid against both the

offending vehicle/bus and the rider of motorcycle, the

deceased herein, tribunal has rightly attributed 50%

contributory negligence which is not interfered.

11. There is no cross objections or cross appeal

filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of

compensation. In view of the same, there being no

proper cogent grounds for interference, I do not find

any reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, I

pass the following:

ORDER

i) Appeal is dismissed.

ii) No order as to costs.

iii) The statutory amount in deposit shall be

refunded to the corporation on proper verification.

SD JUDGE Mrk/-