Karnataka High Court
Ashok Babu Gudasi vs The Divisional Manager on 12 January, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:909
MFA No. 100833 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 101680 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100833 OF 2016 (MV-D)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101680 OF 2016
IN M. F. A. NO.100833 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
ASHOK BABU GUDASI,
AGE: 54 YEARS,OCC: NIL,
R/O: KURNI, TQ: HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590 001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B.S. KAMATE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
D.O., MARUTI GALLI, BELAGAVI-590 001.
2. SMT. SAVITRI W/O. VITHOBA KHADE,
Digitally signed
by SAMREEN
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
AYUB
DESHNUR
R/O: KANAGALA, TQ: HUKKERI,
Date:
2024.02.01
NOW AT C/O: D.M. SHIRAGAVI,
14:29:43 +0530
VINAYAK HOUSING COLONY,
SAHU NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590 001.
3. KUM. PRATAMESH S/O. VITHOBA KHADE,
AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: KANAGALA, TQ: HUKKERI,
NOW AT C/O: D.M. SHIRAGAVI,
VINAYAK HOUSING COLONY,
SAHU NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590 001.
REP. BY M/G MOTHER
RESPONDENT NO.2.
4. KUM. OMKAR S/O. VITHOBA KHADE,
AGE:9 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:909
MFA No. 100833 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 101680 of 2016
R/O: KANAGALA, TQ: HUKKERI,
NOW AT C/O: D.M. SHIRAGAVI,
VINAYAK HOUSING COLONY,
SAHU NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590 001.
REP. BY M/G MOTHER
RESPONDENT NO.2
5. SMT. GOURABAI W/O. ISHWAR KHADE,
AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: KANAGALA, TQ: HUKKERI,
NOW AT C/O: D.M. SHIRAGAVI,
VINAYAK HOUSING COLONY,
SAHU NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GEETHA K.M. @ PAWAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2-R5;
SRI. R.R. MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST IS FILED UNDER SECTION
173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT &
AWARD DATED:25.11.2015, PASSED IN MVC.NO.1658/2011 ON THE
FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MEMBER
ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL - II, BELAGAVI,
AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.13,40,542/- WITH INTEREST
AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS
REALIZATION.
IN M. F. A. NO.101680 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SAVITRI W/O. VITHOBA KHADE,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK,
R/O: KANAGALA, TQ: HUKKERI,
NOW AT C/O: D.M. SHIRGAVI,
VINAYAK HOUSING COLONY,
SHAHU NAGAR, BELAGAVI.
2. KUMAR PRATHAMESH S/O. VITHOBA KHADE,
AGE: 14 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: KANAGALA, TQ: HUKKERI,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
NOW AT C/O: D.M. SHIRGAVI,
VINAYAK HOUSING COLONY,
SAHU NAGAR, BELAGAVI.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:909
MFA No. 100833 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 101680 of 2016
3. KUMAR OMKAR S/O. VITHOBA KHADE,
AGE: 8 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: KANAGALA, TQ: HUKKERI,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
A2 AND A3 R/BY MINOR GUARDIAN A1
SMT. SAVITRI W/O. VITHOBA KHADE,
4. SMT. GOURABAI W/O. ISHWAR KHADE,
AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: KANAGALA, TQ: HUKKERI,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
NOW AT C/O: D.M. SHIRGAVI,
VINAYAK HOUSING COLONY,
SAHU NAGAR, BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. GEETHA K.M. @ PAWAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI. ASHOK BABU GUDASI,
AGE: 53 YEARS,OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KURNI, TQ: HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
(OWNER OF THE MOTORCYCLE BEARING
NO.KA-23/Q-2445)
2. THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY
D.O., MARUTI GALLI, BELAGAVI
(INSURER OF THE MOTOR CYCLE BEARING
NO.KA-23/Q-2445
POLICY NO.160502/31/09/02/00019997 VALID FROM
15.02.2010 TO 14.02.2011)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.S. KAMATE, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. R.R. MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST IS FILED UNDER SECTION
173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT &
AWARD DATED:25.11.2015, PASSED IN MVC.NO.1658/2011 ON THE
FILE OF THE I-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MEMBER MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL - II, BELAGAVI, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:909
MFA No. 100833 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 101680 of 2016
THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS, COMING ON FOR
FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.B.S.Kamate, learned counsel for the
appellant - owner of motorcycle, Smt.Geeta K.M. @
Pawar, learned counsel for the claimants and
Sri.R.R.Mane, learned counsel for the Insurance Company.
2. These two appeals arise out of the judgment
and award passed in MVC No.1658/2011 on the file of the
Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belagavi dated
25.11.2015.
3. The dependants of deceased Vithoba Ishwar
Khade filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor
Vehicles Act conceding that Vithoba lost his life in a road
traffic accident occurred on 25.02.2010 involving
motorcycle bearing No.CTD-4385 and another motorcycle
bearing No.KA-23/Q-2445.
4. The police after receipt of complaint with regard
to the incident, thoroughly investigated the matter and
NC: 2024:KHC-D:909
taking note of the attendant circumstances including spot
panchanama and sketch of place of incident, filed charge
sheet against riders of both motorcycles. Admittedly, there
was no insurance to the motorcycle bearing No.KA-23/Q-
2445.
5. The Tribunal after considering the objection
statements filed by the owner and the Insurance
Company, raised necessary issues and on consideration of
oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the
parties, allowed the claim petition in a sum of
Rs.26,81,084/- with interest at 6% per annum from the
date of petition till realization and attributed 50%
contributory negligence on the rider of the motorcycle
belonging to first respondent and directed that 50% of the
adjudged compensation shall be paid by the owner of the
motorcycle who is first respondent in a sum of
Rs.13,40,542/-.
6. Being aggrieved by the same, first respondent -
owner of the motorcycle bearing No.KA-23/Q-2445 has
NC: 2024:KHC-D:909
preferred MFA No.100833/2016, whereas the claimants
have preferred MFA No.101680/2016 seeking
enhancement of compensation.
7. Sri.B.S.Kamate, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant - owner of motorcycle bearing No.KA-23/Q-
2445 contended that attributing 50% contributory
negligence on the rider of motorcycle bearing No.CTD
4385 is on lower side and it is because of the negligent
riding of motorcycle by the deceased, the accident has
occurred and sought for allowing the appeal by enhancing
the contributory negligence on the deceased to the extent
of 75%.
8. Per contra, Smt.Geetha K.M., learned counsel
appearing for the claimants contended that when charge
sheet is filed by the police against both vehicles,
attributing 50% negligence on the deceased is just and
proper and the quantum of compensation is to be
reassessed.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:909
9. Sri.R.R.Mane, learned counsel representing the
Insurance Company of the motorcycle No.KA-23/Q-2445
contended that the Insurance Company is a formal party
and suitable orders be passed as there is no fastening of
liability on the Insurance Company.
10. In view of the rival contentions of the parties,
this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
perused.
11. On such perusal of the material on record, the
sketch of the place of accident is produced before the
Court and this Court has perused the same.
12. Taking note of the fact that the accident has
occurred at 6.30 p.m. and also taking note of the
negligence that could be attributable to the riders of both
motorcycles, the investigating agency has rightly filed
charge sheet against both riders. Charge sheet filed by the
police is not challenged either by the appellant in MFA
No.100833/2016 or by the dependants of deceased.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:909
13. Under such circumstances, it should be
construed that the police have rightly filed charge sheet
against the riders of both the motorcycles. The Tribunal
after assessing the material evidence on record, has
rightly computed the quantum of compensation in a sum
of Rs.26,81,084/- and attributed 50% contributory
negligence to the rider of motorcycle who lost his life in
the accident.
14. There is no scope for reduction of contributory
negligence on the part of the deceased having regard to
the fact that charge sheet came to be filed against riders
of both motorcycles. Therefore, there is no merit in MFA
No.100833/2016.
15. Taking note of relevant aspects of the matter
the quantum of compensation assessed by the Tribunal in
a sum of R.26,81,084/- is also just and proper and
therefore, there is no scope for any enhancement of
compensation.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:909
16. In view of the foregoing discussion, following
order is passed:
ORDER
(i) Both the appeals are dismissed.
(ii) Amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to be
transmitted to the concerned Tribunal for
disbursement.
(iii) Balance amount, if any, is to be deposited
within six weeks from today.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SH
