Karnataka High Court
Nekrtc Through Its Managing ... vs Dattatraya @ Dattappa S/O Vithal ... on 6 July, 2022
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF JULY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
MFA No.200153/2019 (MV)
BETWEEN:
NEKRTC THROUGH ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
SARIGE SADAN OPP: KBN HOSPITAL,
MAIN ROAD, KALBURGI-585102.
NOW THROUGH ITS
CHIEF LAW OFFICER NEKRTC,
CENTRAL OFFICE, SARIGE,
SADAHANA, MAIN ROAD,
KALABURAGI.
NOW THROUGH ITS
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHARANABASAPPA M.PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
DATTATRAYA @ DATTAPPA
S/O VITTHAL SONAR,
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC: GOLDSMITH NOW NIL,
R/O: BANDRAWAD, TQ: AFZALPUR,
NOW R/O: C.I.B. COLONY,
KALABURAGI-585102.
... RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO
MODIFY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND CALL FOR THE
2
LOWER COURT RECORDS AND HEAR THE PARTIES AND SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.11.2018 AND AWARD DATED
27.11.2018 IN MVC NO.930/2017 BEFORE THE COURT OF III
ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL AT KALABURAGI.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT
Though this appeal is listed for Admission, with the
consent of the learned counsels appearing on both sides, it is
taken-up for final disposal.
2. This appeal is filed by the NEKRTC ('Corporation' for
short) challenging the judgment and award dated 15.11.2018
and 27.11.2018 respectively passed by the III Additional Senior
Civil Judge and MACT, Kalaburagi, in MVC No.930/2017.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are
referred as per the ranks occupied by them before the Tribunal.
4. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are
that, on 05.07.2017 at about 2.45 p.m., near Matroli-Mallbad
Bridge, Mallabad Village, on public road the petitioner was
travelling on motor bike bearing Registration No. KA.32/U.894
and at that time, the driver of the bus bearing Registration
No. KA 28/F.2047 drove it in rash and negligent manner and
dashed to the motor cycle, on which the petitioner/claimant
was travelling, as a result, the claimant sustained grievous
injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to the hospital for
treatment and it is claimed that, the claimant spent Rs.6.00
Lakhs for treatment. Hence, he filed claim petition under
Section 166 of the MV Act, claiming compensation.
5. The Corporation appeared before the Tribunal and
filed objections denying all the allegations and assertions made
in the claim petition. It is denied that the accident in question
is because of the actionable negligence on the part of the driver
of the bus and it is because of actionable negligence on the part
of the rider of the motor cycle himself and hence, sought for
dismissal of the claim petition.
6. The Tribunal after assessing the oral as well as
documentary evidence, has awarded a total compensation of
Rs.8,96,200/- with interest at 6% per annum, from the date of
petition till the date of realisation. The same is challenged by
Corporation in this appeal.
7. Heard he arguments advanced by the learned
counsel appearing for the appellant/Corporation. The
respondents are though served, but have remained un-
represented.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant/Corporation
would contend that the Tribunal has failed to consider that the
accident has occurred when the claimant was in the process of
over-taking and dashed the vehicle to the bus, which has
resulted in the accident and hence, the contributory negligence
ought to have been fixed on the part of the petitioner/claimant
and not on the driver of the bus. He would further contend
that, the 14% disability taken by the Tribunal is on higher side
and it may be reduced and sought for allowing the appeal.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the
appellant/Corporation and perusing the records, it is evident
that the NEKRTC bus hit the bike belonging to the claimant,
which resulted in accident. Admittedly, the claimant has
suffered injuries including fracture and the driver of the
offending bus was prosecuted and chargesheeted for the
offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC. The
driver of the offending bus did not challenge the charge sheet
laid against him and in his evidence he disputes his actionable
negligence. But, the records disclose that the accident in
question is because of the actionable negligence of the part of
the driver of the offending bus only. Under these
circumstances, the ground that there is contributory negligence
on the part of the claimant, cannot be accepted and The
Tribunal is justified in fixing the entire liability on the bus
belonging to the appellant/Corporation.
10. The other contention is about the Tribunal taking
the disability at 14%, which is on higher side. The Doctor, who
examined the claimant has opined that the disability suffered
by the claimant is at 43% to the whole body. The Tribunal
considering this aspect, has observed that, the Doctor (PW.2) is
not the Doctor, who treated the claimant. But, however,
considering the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant, the
Tribunal has taken the disability at 14%, as he was admitted in
hospital for 56 days at different time for grievous injuries
sustained by him. Therefore, in this regard, no illegality or
infirmity is found in judgment of the Tribunal.
11. Looking to the facts and circumstances, the
Tribunal after assessing the oral and documentary evidence in
detail, has rightly taken the disability to the extent of 14%
disability for awarding compensation and has also rightly
fastened the liability on the appellant/Corporation.
12. Under these circumstances, the appeal is being
devoid of any merits, does not survive for consideration and
accordingly, stands dismissed.
The amount in deposit shall be remitted to the concerned
Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KGR*
