Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Controller, ... vs Shankar Sidram Jatakar on 4 December, 2023
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14146
MFA No. 24472 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.24472/2013(MV)
BETWEEN:
1. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
N.W.K.R.T.C.,
CHIKKODI DIVISION,
CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI,
BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER,
INTERNAL INSURANCE K.S.R.T.C.,
K.H.DOUBLE ROAD,
SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU.
(OWNER AND INSURER OF BUS
BEARING NO.KA-01/T-8148)
BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI I. C. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by
BHARATHI SHANKAR SIDRAM JATAKAR,
HM AGE:58 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O: SALAGAR, TQ: MIRAJ,
DIST: SANGLI, (MAHARASHTRA STATE).
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K. H. BHAGI, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ATHANI MVC NO.12/2010
DATED 01.01.2013 AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14146
MFA No. 24472 of 2013
JUDGMENT
Present appeal is filed by the KSRTC on the ground
that the rider of the motorcycle has also contributed his
rash and negligence to the accident and prays to reduce
the quantum of compensation.
2. Heard the arguments and perused the material
placed before the Court.
3. The occurrence of accident, injuries sustained by the
claimant, coverage of insurance are not in dispute in this
case.
4. In the present case, the tribunal while determining
the compensation has attributed the entire rash and
negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. The
tribunal in the claim petition arising out of the same
accident has held in MVC No.13/2010 dated 07.05.2011
has held that the rider of the motorcycle has contributed
10% of his rash and negligence and 90% on the driver of
the bus and this is confirmed by this court in MFA
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14146
No.24862/2012 by order dated 05.11.2019. Since, the
present case is also of the same accident, same crime
number and by the same tribunal. Therefore, as per the
order passed by this court in MFA No.24862/2012, it is
held that rider of the motorcycle has contributed 10% of
his rash and negligence and driver of the bus has
contributed 90% of rash and negligence. To this extent,
the appeal filed by the KSRTC is allowed in part.
5. Therefore, claimant is entitled for 90% of the
compensation what is determined by the tribunal.
6. So far as quantum of compensation awarded is
considered, the tribunal has correctly held the parameters
of multiplier and deduction towards personal and living
expenses by holding income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-
per month and accordingly, the quantum of compensation
determined by the tribunal is found to be just and proper.
The claimant has also not preferred appeal. Therefore,
appeal so far as quantum of compensation is liable to be
dismissed.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14146
7. In view of apportioning of rash and negligence
aspect, the appeal filed by the KSRTC requires to be
allowed in part for the reasons discussed above.
8. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part.
ii) The judgment and award passed in MVC
No.12/2010 dated 01.01.2013 passed by the
Addl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT., Athani is
modified, holding that the KSRTC is liable to
pay 90% of the compensation determined by
the Court.
iii) Amount in deposit is ordered to be
transmitted to the tribunal.
iv) No orders as to cost.
v) Draw decree accordingly.
SD/-
JUDGE
HMB
CT-ASC
