Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Controller vs Raghavendra S/O. Purushottam on 20 February, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4182
MFA No. 101477 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101477 OF 2014 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
KSRTC DIVISION OFFICE,
KOPPAL, DIST:KOPPAL,
THE APPELLANT IS REPRESENTED BY
ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER
CENTRAL OFFICE SARIGE SADANA,
GULBARGA.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S. BADAWADAGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAGHAVENDRA S/O. PURUSHOTTAM,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS and AGRI.,
R/O. CHIKKABOMMANAL,
NOW AT PRASHANT NAGAR, GANGAVATHI,
TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST:KOPPAL.
2. LINGARAJ S/O. FAKEERAPPA KULOOR,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
Digitally
signed by R/O.NAYAK WADI ONI,
SAMREEN
SAMREEN
AYUB
KUSTAGI, DIST:KOPPAL,
AYUB DESHNUR NOW AT KSRTC DEPOT GANGAVATHI,
DESHNUR Date:
2024.02.23 DIST:KOPPAL.
16:33:41
+0530 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIVEK JAIN, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. RAJASHEKHAR R.GUNJALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:21.12.2013, PASSED IN MVC.NO.93/2012 ON THE FILE
OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, AT GANGAVATHI,
AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.1,04,910/- WITH THE
INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4182
MFA No. 101477 of 2014
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.Shivakumar S. Badawadagi, learned counsel for
the appellant and Sri.Vivek Jain, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of Sri.Rajashekhar R. Gunjalli, learned counsel for
respondent No.1.
2. Appeal is filed by the KSRTC challenging the validity
of the judgment and award passed in MVC No.93/2012 dated
21.12.2013 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and MACT,
Gangavathi.
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:
A claim petition is filed under Section 166 of Motor
Vehicles Act, by Sri.Raghavendra, who suffered the accidental
injuries on 06.11.2011 at about 3.30 p.m. being a pedestrian
and due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus
bearing No.KA-37/F-176.
4. In respect of the accident, driver of the KSRTC bus
has been charge sheeted.
5. Claim petition was resisted by filing detailed written
statement.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4182
6. Tribunal, on contest, allowed the claim petition in a
sum of Rs.1,04,910 as under:
A. Loss of future income Rs.53,856/-
B. Pain and suffering Rs.10,000/-
C. Loss of prospects in life Rs.10,000/-
D. Loss of earning during Rs.12,000/-
treatment period
E. Medical expenses Rs.14,054/-
F. Diet, nourishment, Rs.5,000/-
attendant charges and
conveyance
TOTAL Rs.1,04,910/-
7. Being aggrieved by the same, KSRTC is in
appeal.
8. Sri.Shivakumar S. Badawadagi, learned counsel
for the appellant, reiterating the grounds urged in the
appeal memorandum vehemently contended that some
amount of contributory negligence ought to have been
attributed to the injured as he has suddenly crossed the
road, resulting in the accident and sought for allowing the
appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4182
9. Per contra, Sri.Vivek Jain, learned counsel for
the respondent No.1/claimant supported the impugned
judgment on the ground that the charge sheet has been
filed against the driver of the bus and there is no eye
witness examined on behalf of KSRTC except examining
the driver and sought for dismissal of the appeal.
10. In view of the rival contentions of the parties,
this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
11. On such perusal of the material on record,
admittedly, accidental injuries suffered by the claimant has
been established by placing necessary oral and
documentary evidence on record and awarded the
quantum of compensation in a sum of Rs.1,04,910/- is not
questioned by the claimant and therefore, the quantum as
against the claimant has become finer.
12. Taking note of the fact that charge sheet came
to be filed against the driver of the bus and no other eye
witness including conductor has not been examined on
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4182
behalf of KSRTC, the contentions urged on behalf of the
KSRTC that contributory negligence is to be attributed to
the claimant cannot be countenanced in law. Accordingly,
this court is of considered opinion that, there is no merit in
the appeal grounds.
13. Hence, following:
ORDER
i. Appeal is meritless and hereby dismissed.
ii. No order as to costs.
iii. Amount in deposit is ordered to be
transmitted to the Tribunal.
iv. Insurance Company is granted four weeks'
time to deposit the balance amount.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KAV
