Karnataka High Court
The Managing Director Nekrtc vs Chandrakant S/O Veerpakshappa ... on 22 March, 2022
Bench: Ashok S. Kinagi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
MFA NO.31688/2013 (MV)
C/W
MFA NO.31677/2013, MFA NO.31678/2013,
MFA NO.31689/2013, MFA NO.31690/2013,
IN MFA NO.31688 of 2013
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
NEKRTC, GULBARGA.
BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. KARUNADEVI,
W/O BASAVARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O KURIKOTA,
GULBARGA TALUK & DISTRICT - 585 103.
2. BASAVANT,
S/O SHIVANNA NAIKODI,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O MUTHKOD, JEWARGI TALUK,
GULBARGA DISTRICT - 585 103.
2
3. MAHIBOOB,
S/O TAJODDIN,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O BIDAR DEPOT,
BIDAR DISTRICT - 585 401.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MOHD. KHADER KHAN, ADV. FOR C/R1, R2 & R3)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE M.V.ACT PRAYING TO
ALLOW THE ABOVE MISC. FIRST APPEAL AND
CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 10.04.2013 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT AT GULBARGA IN
MVC NO.1204/2012 AND BE PLEASED TO APPELLANT
DISCHARGE FROM ITS LIABILITY TO PAY 80% OF THE
COMPENSATION AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO REDUCE
THE COMPENSATION SUITABLY.
IN MFA NO.31677/2013
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
NEKRTC, GULBARGA.
BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE)
1. CHANDRAKANT,
S/O VEERPAKSHAPPA GONI,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O KURIKOTA,
GULBARGA TALUK & DISTRICT - 585 103.
3
2. GUNDAPPA,
S/O CHANDRAKANT GONI,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O KURIKOTA,
GULBARGA TALUK & DISTRICT - 585 103.
3. SANTOSH,
S/O CHANDRAKANT GONI,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O KURIKOTA,
GULBARGA TALUK & DISTRICT - 585 103.
4. BASAVANT,
S/O SHIVANNA NAIKODI,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O MUTHKOD, JEWARGI TALUK,
GULBARGA DISTRICT - 585 103.
5. MAHIBOOB,
S/O TAJODDIN,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O BIDAR DEPOT,
BIDAR DISTRICT - 585 401.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MOHD. KHADER KHAN, ADV. FOR C/R1, R2 & R3;
NOTICE TO R4 & R5 ARE D/W V/O DTD:31.07.2014)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE M.V.ACT PRAYING TO
ALLOW THE ABOVE MISC. FIRST APPEAL AND
CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 10.04.2013 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT AT GULBARGA IN
MVC NO.1202/2012 AND BE PLEASED TO APPELLANT
DISCHARGE FROM ITS LIABILITY TO PAY 80% OF THE
COMPENSATION AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO REDUCE
THE COMPENSATION SUITABLY.
4
IN MFA NO.31678/2013
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
NEKRTC, GULBARGA.
BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. PRABHAVATI,
W/O RAJSHEKHAR MATHAPATI,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
2. KANCHAN,
D/O RAJSHEKHAR MATHAPATI,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT,
3. MEGHARAJ,
S/O RAJSHEKHAR MATHAPATI,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT,
4. ABHISHEK,
S/O RAJSHEKHAR MATHAPATI,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT,
5. SHANTABAI,
W/O VEERBHADRAYYA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
6. VEERABHADRAYYA,
S/O SHIVALINGAYYA,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
OCC: NIL,
5
ALL ARE R/O KURIKOTA,
GULBARGA TALUK & DISTRICT -585 103.
7. BASAVANT,
S/O SHIVANNA NAIKODI,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O MUTHKOD, JEWARGI TALUK,
GULBARGA DISTRICT - 585 103.
8. MAHIBOOB,
S/O TAJODDIN,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O BIDAR DEPOT, BIDAR-585 401.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MOHD. KHADER KHAN, ADV. FOR R1 TO R6;
NOTICE TO R7 & R8 ARE D/W V/O DTD:21.10.2013)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE M.V.ACT PRAYING TO
ALLOW THE ABOVE MISC. FIRST APPEAL AND
CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 10.04.2013 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT AT GULBARGA IN MVC
NO.1203/2012 AND BE PLEASED TO APPELLANT
DISCHARGE FROM ITS LIABILITY TO PAY 80% OF THE
COMPENSATION AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO REDUCE
THE COMPENSATION SUITABLY.
IN MFA NO.31689/2013
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
NEKRTC, GULBARGA
BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE)
6
AND:
1. SMT. PARVATI,
W/O SHANKAR SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O NAGOOR,
GULBARGA TALUK & DISTRICT - 585 103.
2. BASAVANT,
S/O SHIVANNA NAIKODI,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O MUTHKOD, JEWARGI TALUK,
GULBARGA DISTRICT - 585 103.
3. MAHIBOOB,
S/O TAJODDIN,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O BIDAR DEPOT,
BIDAR DISTRICT - 585 401.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MOHD. KHADER KHAN, ADV. FOR C/R1;
NOTICE TO R2 SERVED;
NOTICE TO R3 D/W V/O DTD:31.07.2014)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE M.V.ACT PRAYING TO
ALLOW THE ABOVE MISC. FIRST APPEAL AND
CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 10.04.2013 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT AT GULBARGA IN
MVC NO.1205/2012 AND BE PLEASED TO APPELLANT
DISCHARGE FROM ITS LIABILITY TO PAY 80% OF THE
COMPENSATION AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO REDUCE
THE COMPENSATION SUITABLY.
7
IN MFA NO.31690/2013
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
NEKRTC, GULBARGA
BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. NEELAMMA,
W/O CHANDRASHEKHAR,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O KURIKOTA,
GULBARGAN TALUK & DISTRICT -585 103.
2. BASAVANT,
S/O SHIVANNA NAIKODI,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O MUTHKOD, JEWARGI TALUK,
GULBARGA DISTRICT - 585 103.
3. MAHIBOOB,
S/O TAJODDIN,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O BIDAR DEPOT,
BIDAR DISTRICT - 585 401.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MOHD. KHADER KHAN, ADV. FOR C/R1;
NOTICE TO R2 & R3 ARE D/W V/O DTD: 31.03.2014)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE M.V.ACT PRAYING TO
ALLOW THE ABOVE MISC. FIRST APPEAL AND
CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 10.04.2013 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
8
PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT AT GULBARGA IN MVC
NO.1206/2012 AND BE PLEASED TO APPELLANT
DISCHARGE FROM ITS LIABILITY TO PAY 80% OF THE
COMPENSATION AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO REDUCE
THE COMPENSATION SUITABLY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT
Since these appeals arise out of the common
judgment, they are heard together and disposed of by
this common judgment.
2. These appeals are filed under Section
173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act')
challenging the judgment and award dated
10.04.2013 passed in MVC Nos.1202 to 1206 of 2012
by the Principal Senior Civil Judge & Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Gulbarga, (for short hereinafter
referred to as 'the Tribunal').
3. Parties are referred to as per their ranking
before the Tribunal.
4. Facts giving rise to filing of these appeals
are as under:
That on 21.06.2012 at about 4.00 p.m.,
deceased Chandrakala in M.V.C.No.1202/2012, and
deceased Rajshekar in M.V.C.No.1203/202 and other
injured persons in M.V.C.Nos.1204 to 1206/2012,
after attending the marriage function at Mastargi
Village, they were proceeding in Tata Ace
Autorickshaw bearing No.KA-32/A-7828, and
deceased Rajshekar was driving the said
Autorickshaw. At that time, respondent No.1 being
the driver of NEKRTC bus bearing No.KA-32/F-1750,
came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent
manner and with a high speed and dashed against the
Autorickshaw and in the meantime, the respondent
No.2 being the driver of another NEKRTC bus bearing
registration No.KA-38/F-527 came from back side in a
rash and negligent manner and with a high speed
dashed to the said Autorickshaw, due to which
Autorickshaw completely damaged and struck in
between two buses, as a result the deceased
Chandrakala and Rajshekar and other petitioners who
are the inmates of the said Autorickshaw have
sustained injuries.
4.1. The petitioners are the legal
representatives of deceased Chandrakala and
Rajshekar in M.V.C.No.1202/2012 and
M.V.C.No.1203/2012 have filed claim petition under
Section 166 of the M.V.Act, seeking for compensation
on account of death Chandrakala and Rajshekar in the
road traffic accident and other petitioners have
sustained grievous injuries have also filed claim
petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, seeking for
compensation on account of injuries sustained in the
road traffic accident.
4.2. The respondents No.1 and 2 appeared
before the Tribunal and filed common written
statement denying the averments made in the claim
petition and contended that the driver of the
Autorickshaw was carrying the passengers more than
the permit and came in a rash and negligent manner
and dashed to the respondent No.1 bus, which was
completely on the left side of the road and thereafter
it hit to the bus of respondent No.2. It is contended
that the claim made by the petitioners is exorbitant
and without any basis. Hence, prayed to dismiss the
claim petition.
4.3. The respondent No.3 - Insurance Company
filed written statement denying the averments made
in the petition, and contended that the accident has
occurred due to the rash and negligent act on the part
of the driver of the Autorickshaw, as the driver of the
Autorickshaw while overtaking the bus in a zig-zag
manner he dashed to bus. Further, contended that as
the owner and insurer of the said Autorickshaw has
not made parties to the petition. It is contended that
the claim made by the petitioners is exorbitant and
without any basis. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim
petition.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,
the Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter
recorded the common evidence. The petitioners, in
order to prove their respective case, examined
themselves as PW-1 to PW-6 and have examined the
doctor ad PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely
Ex.P1 to Ex.P38. On behalf of respondents,
respondent No.1 and 2, the drivers of the bus were
examined as RW-1 and RW-2 and no documents were
marked. The Tribunal, after recording the evidence
and considering the material on record, held that
petitioners have proved that, the petitioners and
deceased Chandrakala and Rajshekar have met with
accident and sustained injuries in the road traffic
accident. In order to prove that, the accident was
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
drivers of the offending vehicle, have produced the
copy of FIR and Chargesheet marked as Ex.P1 and
Ex.P2. Ex.P2 discloses that the accident was occurred
due to rash and negligent driving of the divers of the
offending vehicle and consequently held that all the
drivers are contributed for the cause of accident and
there is a composite negligence on the part of the
drivers of all three vehicles and apportionment is
made at the ratio of 40:20:40 and consequently
allowed the claim petition and awarded a
compensation. The respondent No.2 - Insurance
Company aggrieved by the judgment and award
passed by the tribunal filed appeals in MFA
Nos.31688/2013, 31677/2013, 31678/2013,
31689/2013 and M.F.A.No.31690/2013 challenging
the liability.
6. Heard the learned counsel for respondent
No.3 and also learned counsel for petitioners.
7. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 -
Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has
committed an error in holding there is composite
negligence on the part of all the drivers of vehicles
and apportionment is made at the ration of 40:20:40
is incorrect. He further submits that in
M.F.A.No.31678, wherein he submits that the Tribunal
has committed an error in awarding compensation
towards damages caused to the Autorickshaw for
Rs.1,25,000/-, wherein he contended that the
petitioner in M.V.C.No.1203/2012 has produced
Ex.P15, which is quotation issued by the Manickbag
Automobiles for an amount of Rs.2,81,075/-. The
quotation is not supported by bill for having actual
repaired of the vehicle. In the absence of proof of bill,
the Tribunal was not justified in awarding
compensation for damages of Rs.1,25,000/-. Hence,
on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the
petitioners supports the impugned judgment and
award passed by the Tribunal. He further submits
that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just
and proper and does not call for any interference. He
further submits that the apportionment of liability
fastening on the respondents No.1 to 3 are just and
proper. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss
the appeal.
9. Perused the records and considered the
submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
10. It is not in dispute that regarding date of
accident, place of accident and manner of accident
and death of Chandrakala and Rajshekar and also
injuries sustained by the petitioners in the road traffic
accident. In order to prove, the negligence of the part
of the drivers of the offending vehicle, have produced
Ex.P2. Ex.P2 discloses that, there is a negligence on
the part of all the three drivers in driving the vehicle,
and the accident was occurred due to rash and
negligent act on the part of all the three vehicles and
there is composite negligence on the part of all the
three drivers and the apportionment made by the
Tribunal i.e., 40:20:40. 40% is on the driver of the
bus bearing registration No.KA-32/F-1750 and 20%
on the driver of Tata Ace Autorickshaw bearing
registration No.KA-32/A-7828 and 40% on the driver
of bus registration bearing No.KA-38/F-527
respectively. Ex.P3 discloses that there was a
composite negligence on the part of all the three
drivers, the Tribunal was justified in fastening the
liability to the extent of 80% on respondent No.3. The
Tribunal relying on the documents produced by the
petitioner has fastened the liability.
11. Insofar as M.F.A.No.31678/2013, it is the
case of the petitioner that, Tata Ace Autorickshaw
bearing registration No.KA-32/A-7828 got crushed
and struck between two buses and completely
damaged and further he sought for a claim of
damages to the Autorickshaw involved in the accident.
In order to prove that, the Autorickshaw damaged
petitioner has produced the copy of IMV report
marked as Ex.P4. Ex.P4 discloses that the said
Autorickshaw was damaged front wind screen glass
broken, top head at right side pressed and damaged,
front show right side portion pressed and damaged
front side pillar pressed and damaged, right side head
light and indicator broken, right side driver cabin door
pressed and damaged steering wheel dislocated and
etc. Further, petitioner has produced Ex.P15, which is
quotation issued by the Manickbag Automobiles
Private Limited, Gulbarga for an amount of
Rs.2,81,075/-. The said quotation is not supported by
the bill for having actual repaired of the vehicle and
further petitioner has not produced any bill. Though,
the Tribunal has discarded the quotation Ex.P15.
However, awarded compensation of Rs.1,25,000/-,
towards damages caused to Autorickshaw. In the
absence of record, Tribunal has committed an error in
awarding compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- towards
damages caused to the Autorickshaw to the said
extent. The impugned judgment and award is liable
to be modify.
12. In view of the above discussion, I proceed
to pass the following:
ORDER
i. M.F.A.Nos.31688/2013, 31677/2013,
31689/2013 and 31690/2013 are
dismissed.
ii. M.F.A.No.31678/2013 is allowed in
part. The judgment and award
passed by the Tribunal in
MVC.No.1203/2012 dated
10.04.2013, is modified. The
compensation awarded in
MVC.No.1203/2012 is reduce to
Rs.11,09,700/-.
iii. The petitioners in
M.V.C.No.1203/2012 are entitled to
a compensation of Rs.11,09,700/-
instead of a sum of Rs.12,34,700/-
as awarded by the Tribunal.
In view of disposal of appeal in
M.F.A.No.31678/2013, I.A.No.2/2013 does not
survive for consideration.
Amount in deposit if any be transmitted to
the Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
GRD
