Karnataka High Court
The Branch Manager vs B.M.Mahesha on 1 February, 2024
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:4453
MFA No. 2592 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2592 OF 2018 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
V.V. ROAD, MANDYA CITY, MANDYA,
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS
DEPUTY MANAGER K. SAIPRAKASH,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE, SHUBHARAM COMPLEX,
M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. L. SREEKANTA RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. B.M.MAHESHA,
S/O POOJARI MARIYAPPA,
Digitally signed by JAI
JYOTHI J AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA R/O BYADARAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI,
NAGAMANGALA TALUK - 571 432.
2. RAGHAVENDRA,
S/O SIDDARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/O MADALAHALLI VILLAGE,
NEAR T.B. EXTENSION, KASBA HOBLI,
NAGAMANGALA TALUK - 571 432.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NAGESH M, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 - NOTICE SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:4453
MFA No. 2592 of 2018
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.04.2017 PASSED IN MVC
NO.714/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE &
MACT, NAGAMANGALA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
RS.1,01,475/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company being
insurer of Auto Rickshaw bearing No.KA-06-B-2251
challenging the judgment and award dated 06.04.2017,
passed by the Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Nagamangala, in
MVC No.714/2013, questioning the 50% negligence
attributed on the respondent No.2, who is driver of Auto
Rickshaw bearing No.KA-06-B-2251.
2. It is the case of the claimant that on 08.03.2012,
the claimant was driving his Auto Rickshaw bearing No.KA-
54-1935 (hereinafter referred to as 'A/R 1935' for short)
at 8.30 p.m. towards Palagrahara, at that time, the driver
of another Auto Rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-06-B-2251
NC: 2024:KHC:4453
(hereinafter referred to as 'A/R 2251' for short) was
driving the Auto Rickshaw in a rash and negligent manner
and caused accident. Due to the said accident, the
claimant has sustained injuries and has filed claim petition
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for
claiming compensation and the Tribunal has held that the
drivers of both 'A/R 1935' and 'A/R 2251' are equally held
responsible for causing the accident and has attributed
negligence at the ratio of 50:50 on both the drivers.
3. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused
the records.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
the claimant, who is the driver of 'A/R 1935' has caused
the accident to the 'A/R 2251'. The entire allegation is
against the claimant in the complaint and the charge sheet
is filed against him. Therefore, the claim petition is liable
to be dismissed and prays to allow the appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC:4453
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent No.1 - claimant justified the judgment and
award passed by the Tribunal.
6. In the present case, the Tribunal has held that
both the drivers of the 'A/R 1935' and 'A/R 2251' are
equally held responsible for causing the accident. Ex.P.1
is the complaint with FIR, in which, the entire allegation is
made against the driver of 'A/R 1935'. Ex.P.3 is the
charge sheet, in which, the entire accusation is made
against the claimant, who was driving 'A/R 1935'. PW-2 is
the PSI, who has conducted investigation in the case and
deposed that during the course of investigation, it is found
that claimant being driver of 'A/R 1935' was rash and
negligent and has caused the accident. When this being
the fact, the evidence on record proves that the accident is
caused due to entire rash and negligent driving of 'A/R
1935', the claim petition filed by the claimant under
Section 166 of MV Act who was driving 'A/R 1935' is liable
to be rejected. The Tribunal has committed an error in
NC: 2024:KHC:4453
attributing negligence equally on the drivers of 'A/R 1935'
and 'A/R 2251'. But the evidence on record proves that
the claimant, who was driving 'A/R 1935' has caused the
accident. Therefore, due to rash and negligent driving of
the claimant, the accident has occurred and the Tribunal
attributing 50% negligence on the part of the 'A/R 2251' is
not correct.
7. The respondent No.2 herein has filed claim
petition in MVC No.46/2013 against the respondent No.1
and his insurer TATA AIG General Insurance Company and
the said MVC No.46/2013 ended up in compromise. The
respondent No.2 herein being claimant in the said claim
petition has got 50% of compensation. Thereafter, the
claimant has filed the instant petition under Section 166 of
the MV Act against the respondent No.2 and the appellant.
The Tribunal has just swayed away by the compromise
decree passed in MVC No.46/2013 filed by the respondent
No.2 and held in MVC No.714/2013 that the respondent
No.2 and claimant are equally held responsible for causing
NC: 2024:KHC:4453
the accident and has attributed negligence in the ratio of
50:50 on both the drivers. Considering the evidence on
record, it is proved that claimant is completely rash and
negligent in causing the accident and attributing 50% of
negligence on the part of the driver of the 'A/R 2251' is
not correct. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have
dismissed the claim petition. Hence, I proceed to pass the
following:-
ORDER
i. The appeal is hereby allowed.
ii. The impugned judgment and award dated
06.04.2017, passed in MVC No.714/2013 on
the file of the Senior Civil Judge & MACT, at
Nagamangala, is hereby set aside.
iii. The amount in deposit shall be refunded to the
Tribunal forthwith.
iv. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court
records to the Tribunal, along with certified
NC: 2024:KHC:4453
copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith
without any delay.
v. Draw award accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MH/-
CT: BHK
