Karnataka High Court
M.K.Hanumanthappa vs S. Suresh Kumar on 2 March, 2022
Bench: P.S.Dinesh Kumar, M G Uma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G. UMA
MFA NO.220 OF 2016 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. M.K.HANUMANTHAPPA S/O LATE KENCHAPPA
AGED 60 YEARS
2. SMT.SAKAMMA W/O M.K.HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED 52 YEARS
3. K.H.VIJAYAKUMAR S/O M.K.HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED 29 YEARS
ALL ARE R/O
HONNANAYAKANAHALLI
GARAGA POST, CHENNAGIRI TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577213
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. D.S.SRIDHAR, ADV.)
AND:
1. S.SURESH KUMAR
S/O SHIVARUDRE GOWDA
MAJOR
R/AT NO.21/8, AZEEMA BUILDING
A.V.ROAD
KALASIPALYAM
BENGALURU - 560 002
2. M/S ICICI LOMBARD GEN. INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO.89, 2ND FLOOR, S V R COMPLEX
2
HOSUR MAIN ROAD
MADIVALA
BENGALURU - 560 068
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGER
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R.2;
NOTICE TO R.1 IS D/W V/O/D 01.03.2016)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.09.2015
PASSED IN MVC NO.4485/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
P.S.DINESH KUMAR, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the claimants seeking
enhancement of compensation by challenging the judgment
and award in MVC No.4485/2014 dated 23.09.2015 passed
by the Principal Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be
referred as per their status before the Tribunal.
3. Heard Shri D.S. Sridhar, learned Advocate for
the appellants and Shri B Pradeep, learned Advocate for
respondent No.2.
4. Shri D.S. Sridhar, has urged solitary contention
that the Tribunal has erred in saddling 25% contributory
negligence on the deceased. He submitted that the
deceased was a pedestrian and the offending vehicle is a
bus. Therefore, contributory negligence could not have
been saddled upon the deceased.
5. In reply, Shri B Pradeep, adverting to paragraph
No.19 of the judgment of the Tribunal submitted that road
crossing is prohibited on the national highways except
where there is zebra crossing or a skywalk. He urged that
the Tribunal has erred in considering 50% towards 'Future
prospects' because the deceased was aged 31 years and did
not have secured job. Therefore, 40% ought to have
considered. Further the Tribunal has erred in deducting
1/3rd of the earning of the deceased though he was a
bachelor. Accordingly, he prays for re-assessing the
compensation.
6. So far as the submission of Shri. D S Shridhar,
with regard to contributory negligence is concerned, the
Tribunal has recorded in paragraph No.19 of its judgment
that there was no zebra crossing and at the distance of 15
feet from the spot of accident, skywalk was available.
Shri B Pradeep, right in his submission submitted that
crossing of national highway at unspecified point is
prohibited. In view of the same, we agree with the
reasons recorded by the Tribunal in saddling 25%
contributory negligence on part of the deceased. Therefore,
findings of the Tribunal does not require any interference.
7. So far the contention of Shri B Pradeep with
regard to re-assessment of the compensation is concerned,
admittedly insurer has not filed any appeal challenging the
impugned judgment and award. In that view of the matter,
we refrain to consider the said prayer.
8. Resultantly, this appeal must fail and it is
accordingly dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
NMS
