Sri. Narasappa S/O Bhimappa ... vs The Divisional Controller Ksrtc ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9877 Kant

                               1



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   KALABURAGI BENCH

         DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2022

                            BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

                  MFA No.32546/2013 (MV)

BETWEEN:

1.     Sri. Narasappa
       S/o Bhimappa Malagond,
       Aged about 58 years, Occ: Agril.,
       R/o Beeraladinni,
       Tq. B.Bagewadi, Dist: Bijapur.

2.     Smt. Gangawwa
       W/o Narasappa Malagond,
       Aged about 53 years,
       Occ: House Wife,
       R/o Beeraladinni,
       Tq: B.Bagewadi, Dist: Bijapur.
                                                ... Appellants

(By Sri. Sanganabasava B. Patil, Advocate for
    Sri. Umesh V. Mamadapur, Advocate)

AND:

1.     The Divisional Controller,
       KSRTC, Bijapur,
       (Now N.W.R.T.C., Bijapur)
       Pin: 586 101.

2.     Mallappa S. Pattar,
       Aged about 56 years,
       C/o Tilakchand M. Oswal,
       Saraf Bazar, Muddebihal,
                                  2



      Tq: Muddebihal-586 312,
      Dist: Bijapur.

3.    United India Insurance Company Limited,
      By its Manager, Bijapur Branch,
      S.S. Front Road, Bijapur-586 101.
                                         ... Respondents

(Sri. Subhash Mallapur, Advocate for R1;
 Sri. Shivanand Patil, Advocate for R3;
 R2 - served)

      This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, praying to set aside the
impugned judgment and award dated 06.08.2013 passed in
MVC No.1283/2007 on the file of the 1st Addl. Senior Civil
Judge and M.A.C.T. No.VI, Bijapur by allowing the appeal and
award a compensation of Rs.14,99,990/- as now restricted as
claimed by the appellants by allowing the petition in MVC
No.1283/2007 filed before the Court below.


      This appeal coming on for final hearing this day, the
Court delivered the following:


                         JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimants under Section

173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, challenging the judgment

and award dated 06.08.2013 passed by the I Additional Senior

Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.VI, Bijapur

(hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short) in MVC

No.1283/2007.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are

referred with the original ranks occupied by the before the

Tribunal.

3. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are

that, the original claimant Ningappa was the driver of Tata

Sumo vehicle bearing No.KA-28/M-3057 and on 12.10.2006 at

about 11.00 a.m., when he was moving from Almatti to

Bijapur on NH-13, his vehicle met with an accident by colliding

with KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-28/F-1092, as a result of

which the claimant injured suffered injuries and he was shifted

to Bijapur Civil Hospital and after one week he was shifted to

Vanless Hospital, Miraj. He was discharged subsequently.

Hence, he filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V.

Act. Meanwhile, the claimant died during the pendency of the

proceedings and his parents, who are legal heirs were brought

on record and they prosecuted the matter.

4. The respondents contested the claim petition

disputing the liability and further asserted that the claimant

himself was rash and negligent, as the charge sheet was laid

against him and in pursuance of submission of the charge

sheet, the question of he claming compensation in respect of

injuries sustained by him does not arise at all. Hence, he

prayed for rejection of the claim petition.

5. The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and

documentary evidence has dismissed the claim petition on the

ground that the claimant himself is a tort-feasor and he did

not sustain any injuries on account of actionable negligence on

the part of the driver of the KSRTC bus.

6. Being aggrieved by this judgment and award, the

legal representatives of the original claimant have filed this

appeal.

7. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned

counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the

respondent Nos.1 and 3 and perused the records.

8. The learned counsel for the appellants would

contend that at least the Tribunal ought to have granted

medical bills, though there is no evidence to prove the nexus

between the accidental injuries and the death.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1

and 3 would support the judgment and award passed by the

Tribunal.

10. Having heard the arguments and perusing the

records, it is all along contended by the claimants that the

accident is because of actionable negligence on the part of the

driver of the KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-28/F-1092. However,

the records disclose that charge sheet is laid down against the

claimant-Nignappa himself. The records further disclose that

'B' summary final report is submitted against the driver of the

KSRTC bus by absolving him from any criminal prosecution.

Hence, the investigation reveals that the accident in question

is exclusively because of actionable negligence on the part of

the deceased claimant.

11. The evidence further disclose that the claimant

was initially admitted in District Hospital, Bijapur and

thereafter he was shifted to Vanless Hospital. The evidence of

PW.1 further disclose that subsequent to his discharge, the

claimant suffered another accident and later on he was

complaining some pain in abdomen for other reasons and was

admitted in the hospital, wherein he committed suicide.

Hence, it is a fact that death is not arising out of the

accidental injuries, as the original claimant has committed

suicide. Further, the records clearly disclose that the accident

is because of the actionable negligence of original claimant -

Ningappa himself. When the claimant himself is a tort-feasor,

question of he claiming any compensation against the driver of

the KSRTC bus does not arise at all. Further, he did not file a

petition under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, but the petition

is filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act and he is required to

prove that there is any actionable negligence on the part of

the driver of the KSRTC bus, but no such evidence is

forthcoming. After his death, since the accident in question is

because of his own actionable negligence, question of legal

representatives claming medical bills also does not arise at all.

The Tribunal has considered all these aspects in proper

perspective and dismissed the claim petition. The judgment

and award passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any

infirmity or illegality so as to call for any interference by this

Court. Hence, the appeal is devoid of any merits and needs to

be dismissed.

Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

LG