Karnataka High Court
Smt. Kamala W/O Shivappa Betageri vs Shri. Manjunath S/O Ganapathi ... on 31 March, 2022
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
M.F.A. NO.103321 OF 2018 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. KAMALA W/O SHIVAPPA BETAGERI,
AGE 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O VIVEKANAND NAGAR, GOKAK
TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-593107.
2. SHRI. BASAVARAJ S/O SHIVAPPA BETAGERI
AGE 31 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE IN PRIAVATE,
R/O VIVEKANAND NAGAR, GOKAK,
TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-593107.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SANTOSH S.HATTIKATAGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SHRI MANJUNATH S/O GANAPATHI EHGADE,
AGE MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O VIDYA NAGAR, GOKAK,
Digitally TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-593107.
signed by J
MAMATHA ...RESPONDENT
Location:
J
MAMATHA Dharwad
(BY SRI. VENKATESH M.KHARVI
Date:
2022.04.05 FOR SHRI VAGEESH HEDGE, ADVOCATE)
10:34:52
+0530
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V. ACT,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.06.2018,
PASSED IN MVC NO.2071/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, GOKAK, DISMISSING THE
PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 166 OF M.V. ACT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
MFA No. 103321 of 2018
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is preferred by the claimants
challenging the dismissal of their claim petition.
2. The claim petition was filed alleging that on
06.07.2015 at about 7:35 p.m. when Shivappa Basappa
Betageri was standing by the side of the road, near LET
College, Laxmi Talkies Road, the rider of the motorcycle
bearing registration No.KA-49/J-0607 collided with Shivappa
Basappa Betageri, as a result of which, he sustained grievous
injuries to his head and became unconscious. It was stated
that despite being shifted from hospital to hospital, Shivappa
Basappa Betageri could not regain consciousness and
ultimately died on 22.08.2015.
3. The owner cum rider of the motorcycle
Shri Manjunath Hegde entered appearance and contested the
matter. After denying all the averments in the claim petition,
Shri Manjunath Hegde stated as follows as regards the
accident:
"15. F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ªÀÄÈvÀ£ÁzÀ ²ªÀ¥Àà §¸À¥Àà ¨ÉlUÉÃj EªÀ£ÀÄ
¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 70 ªÀAiÀĹì£À ªÀåQÛ EgÀÄvÁÛ£É. CªÀ¤UÉ ªÀAiÀĹì£À
MFA No. 103321 of 2018
PÁgÀt¢AzÀ PÀvÀÛ-É DVzÀÝjAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ C°è ¨É¼ÀQ£À C¨sÁªÀvɬÄAzÀ
ºÁUÀÆ zÀ馅 »Ã£ÀvɬÄAzÀ DvÀ£ÀÄ M§â£Éà ¸ÀzÀj gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°è
¥ÀƪÀð¢AzÀ ¥À²ÑªÀÄPÉÌ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÁUÀ DvÀ£ÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÀ ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ
ªÉÃUÀ vÀqÉ (Speed Breaker) EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. D ªÉüÉAiÀÄ°è
JzÀÄgÀÄUÁUÀ£ÀÄ vÀ£Àß ªÁºÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤zsÁ£ÀªÁV zÀQët¢AzÀ GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ
ºÉÆgÀnzÀÝ£ÀÄ, ¸ÀzÀj PÀëtzÀ°è M«ÄäAzÉƪÀÄä-É ªÀÄÈvÀ ²ªÀ¥Àà FvÀ£ÀÄ
zÀ馅 »Ã£ÀvɬÄAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨É¼ÀQ£À C¨sÁªÀ¢AzÀ vÁ£ÁVAiÉÄà §AzÀÄ
F JzÀÄgÀÄUÁgÀ£À UÁrAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ-É ©zÀÝ£ÀÄ vÀPÀëtªÉà F JzÀÄgÀÄUÁgÀ£ÀÄ
vÀ£Àß ªÁºÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß C°èAiÉÄà ¤°è¹zÀ£ÀÄ, DvÀ¤UÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ
M¼ÀUÁAiÀĪÁUÀ° CxÀªÁ ºÉÆgÀUÁAiÀĪÁUÀ° EgÀ°®è. DzÀgÀÆ
ªÀAiÀĹì£À PÁgÀt¢AzÀ F JzÀÄgÀÄUÁgÀ£ÀÄ vÀPÀëtªÉà PÀªÀÄvÀgÀªÀgÀ
D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ DvÀ£À£ÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV ¥ÀjÃQë¸À-ÁV DvÀ¤UÉ
AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ DVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. PÉ® ºÉÆvÀÄÛUÀ¼À £ÀAvÀgÀ F
JzÀÄgÀÄUÁgÀ£ÀÄ vÀ£Àß UÁrAiÀÄ°è PÀÆræ¹PÉÆAqÀÄ DvÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ vÀ£Àß
ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ°è PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F JzÀÄgÀÄUÁgÀ£ÀÄ vÀ£Àß
ªÁºÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß Cwà eÉÆÃgÁV DUÀ° ªÀ ¤µÁ̼ÀfvÀ£À¢AzÀ
ZÀ-Á¬Ä¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ²ªÀ¥Àà FvÀ£ÀÄ ªÀÄgÀtPÉÌ ºÁUÀÆ ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ
C¥ÀWÁvÀªÀÅ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà jÃwAiÀÄ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. JzÀÄgÀÄUÁgÀ£ÀÄ
ªÀiÁ£À«ÃAiÀÄvɬÄAzÀ vÀ£ÀßzÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà vÀ¥ÀÄà EgÀ¢zÀÝgÀÆ PÀÆqÁ
ªÀAiÀĸÁìzÀ ªÀÄ£ÀĵÀå¤UÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà jÃwAiÀÄ vÉÆAzÀgÉ DUÀ¨ÁgÀzÀÄ
CAvÁ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ ¸ÀévÀB JzÀÄvÀÄUÁgÀ£Éà RZÀÄð ªÀiÁr G¥ÀZÁgÀ
ªÀiÁr¹zÀÝgÀÄ UÉÊgÀÄ ¥Á¬ÄzÉ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ JµÉÆÖà ¢£ÀUÀ¼À £ÀAvÀgÀ
²ªÀ¥Àà£À ªÁgÀ¸ÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä vÀªÀÄä°è «ZÁgÀ «¤ªÀÄAiÀÄ ªÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ
¥ÉÆð¸ÀgÉÆA¢UÉ «ÄÃ-Á¦AiÀiÁV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ JzÀÄgÀÄUÁgÀ£À ªÉÄÃ-É ¸ÀļÀÄî
¥ËdzÁj ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß zÁR°¹zÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F ªÉÄÃ-É ºÉýzÀAvÉ
²ªÀ¥Àà FvÀ£À ªÀÄgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ C¥ÀWÁvÀPÉÌ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà jÃwAiÀÄ
¸ÀA§AzsÀ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. F jÃw ªÉÄÊvÀ£À ªÁgÀ¸ÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ
¥ÉÆð¸ÀgÉÆA¢UÉ «ÄÃ-Á¦AiÀiÁV ¸ÀļÀÄî PÉøÀ£ÀÄß zÁR°¹zÀÝgÀ UÉÊgÀÄ
¥Á¬ÄzÉ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ F ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß JzÀÄgÀÄUÁgÀ£À ªÉÄÃ-É
¥ÀjºÁgÀ PÉÆÃj ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, DzÀgÉ F JzÀÄgÀÄUÁgÀ£ÀÄ ²ªÀ¥Àà FvÀ£À
ªÀÄgÀtPÉÌ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà jÃwAiÀÄ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ EgÀzÉà EzÀÄÝzÀÝjAzÀ DvÀ£ÀÄ
¥ÀjºÁgÀ zsÀ£À PÉÆÃgÀĪÀ ¥Àæ±Éß §gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. PÁgÀt CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀ
CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß RZÀÄð ¸À»vÀ ªÀeÁ ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÁV «£ÀAw."
4. As could be seen from the said statement, it was
the admitted case of the rider of the motorcycle that
Shivappa Basappa Betageri had fallen on his motorcycle and
MFA No. 103321 of 2018
as a result, suffered injuries. In other words, it was the case
of the rider of the motorcycle that the 70 year old Shivappa
Basappa Betageri by himself came and fell on his motorcycle
and therefore no negligence could be attributed on him.
5. The Police after conducting an investigation have
laid a charge sheet against the respondent herein. This prima
facie indicates that even according to the Police, there was
negligence on the part of the respondent. The fact that the
respondent admits that the deceased come and fell on his
motorcycle itself establishes the impact. It is to be noticed
here that it is virtually impossible for the rider of the
motorcycle to allow a 70 year old person to come and fall on
his motorcycle without taking any preventive action to avoid
the collusion. If a motorcycle rider sees the approach of a
pedestrian, it is expected of the motorcycle rider to stop and
allow the pedestrian to pass. The fact that the respondent
admits that he allowed the deceased to come and fall over
his motorcycle by itself proves that there was negligence on
the part of the rider of the motorcycle. The argument of the
learned counsel for the respondent owner that the rider of
MFA No. 103321 of 2018
the motorcycle was not in any way responsible cannot be
therefore accepted and the same is rejected.
6. The second limb of argument is that the death of
Shivappa Basappa Betageri was not attributed to the
accident cannot also be accepted. On 06.07.2015, i.e., the
date of the accident, the petitioner was admitted to Kamath's
Hospital by the respondent himself. The outpatient slip in
respect of Kamath's Hospital is produced as Ex.P11. On that
very day, Ex.P17, the discharge summary issued by Gokak
Intensive Care Unit indicates that the deceased was admitted
to the said ICU on 06.07.2015 with a history of giddiness
and vomiting and he was kept in the Gokak Intensive Care
Unit till 09.07.2015. Thereafter, Ex.P15, the discharge card
issued by Vivekananda General Hospital indicates that the
deceased was admitted in Vivekananda General Hospital on
11.07.2015 with a history of right cerebral bleed with mass
effect and it was found that he was unable to move all limbs
and had a history of vomiting. The said Hospital has recorded
that there was cerebellar haematoma hepatic edematous and
MFA No. 103321 of 2018
he was treated. It is also recorded that he was being shifted
to KLE Hospital, Gokak for further management.
7. Ex.P18, the summary sheet of KLE's ICU at Gokak
indicates that he was admitted on 20.07.2015 and
discharged on 09.08.2015 with the diagnosis of post
operative state for cerebellar bleed, post RTA. The said
discharge summary issued also notes that he was being
referred back to Vivekananda General Hospital. Thereafter
vide Ex.P16, it is clear that the deceased was admitted in
KIMS Hospital till he was discharged on 15.08.2015. The
patient's discharge summary indicates the following as
history in brief:
"History in brief: Alleged b/o RTA on
06.07.2015 at around 7:30 p.m. near Maya
Hospital, Gokak Pt had 2 episodes of vomiting
at home following which he was taken to KLE
Hospital, then referred to Vivekananda Hospital
and operated as Pt side were not affordable.
The came here pt is not conscious, now
drowsy."
8. It also indicates that a trachestamy was done on
the deceased, which indicates that the deceased was in a
coma. The deceased thereafter was discharged on
MFA No. 103321 of 2018
15.08.2015 since his son wanted him to be shifted to
Government Hospital at Bengaluru and it would be
convenient for him to take the patient to Bengaluru. Thus,
right from the date of accident till 15.08.2015, the medical
evidence indicates that the deceased had suffered a head
injury and was not in a conscious state. Ultimately, on
22.08.2015, admittedly, the deceased passed away. This
entire chronology of events leaves absolutely no room for
doubt that the deceased died on 22.08.2015 only as a result
of the severe head injury that he had suffered on
06.07.2015. In fact the postmortem report also confirms this
particular deduction.
9. In this view of the matter, it is clear that the
deceased died only because of the accident. As held above,
since the respondent was responsible for the accident, he
would be liable for the compensation payable to the legal
representatives of the deceased.
10. The deceased was aged about 65 years as on the
date of the accident and since there is no documentary
MFA No. 103321 of 2018
evidence to establish his income, it would be prudent to
adopt the income determined the Karnataka State Legal
Services Authority, which would be a sum of Rs.8,000/- per
month. Out of the said sum of Rs.8,000/-, 1/3rd would have
to be deducted towards his personal expenses and this would
result in the monthly income of the deceased of Rs.5,333/-
(Rs.8,000/- - 1/3rd).
11. Since the deceased was aged 65 years, a
multiplier of 7 would have to be adopted. Thus, the claimant
would be entitled to the compensation towards loss of
dependency would be Rs.4,47,972/- (Rs.5,333/- x 12 x 7).
12. In addition, the claimants being the widow and
the son, each of them would be entitled a sum of
Rs.44,000/- each towards loss of consortium apart from a
sum of Rs.33,000/- is awarded towards conventional heads.
13. As noticed above, the deceased was hospitalized
right from 06.07.2015 till he was finally discharged on
15.08.2015, the medical bills which were produced from
MFA No. 103321 of 2018
Exs.P19 & P108, a sum of Rs.1,83,657/- is awarded towards
medical expenses.
14. Since the evidence on record clearly and
unequivocally establishes not only the accident but also the
negligence on the part of the rider, the judgments relied
upon by the learned counsel in AIR 2013 SC 198, the
decisions of this Court in the case of Zameer Vs. Mehaboob
Basha and others reported in ILR 2015 KAR 919 and also
the decision of this Court in the case of Mallappa S/o.
Ramappa Talawar and others Vs. Lal S/o. Sundarlal
Jain and another in MFA No.30251/2010, disposed of on 6th
August 2014, have no relevance.
15. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to the total
compensation as follows:
1. Loss of dependency Rs.4,47,972/-
2. Loss of consortium Rs.88,000/-
(Rs.44,000/- x 2)
3. Towards conventional heads Rs.33,000/-
4. Medical Expenses Rs.1,83,657/-
TOTAL Rs.7,52,629/-
- 10 -
MFA No. 103321 of 2018
16. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants-
claimants is allowed in part; the Judgment and award passed
by the Tribunal is modified.
17. The claimants would be entitled to the total
compensation of Rs.7,52,629/- along with 6% interest from
the date of petition till its realization.
18. The respondent - owner is directed to deposit the
entire compensation amount along with interest before the
Tribunal within six weeks from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order for disbursement to the claimants.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Vnp*
