Karnataka High Court
Sachin Shyam Samant vs The Divisional Controller on 8 January, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:356
MFA No. 100956 of 2015
C/W.
MFA No. 100954 of 2015
and MFA No. 100955 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100956 OF 2015 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100954 OF 2015
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100955 OF 2015
IN M. F. A. NO.100956 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
SMT. SHUBHANGI SHYAM SAMANT,
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, NOW NIL,
R/O: 23, DOMBIVLI, CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY,
NEAR S.K. PATIL SCHOOL, RAMNAGAR,
DOMBIVLI (E)-421 201,
MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA STATE.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. HARISH S.MAIGUR, ADVOCATE)
BHARATHI AND:
HM
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
Digitally signed by
BHARATHI H M NWKRTC BELAGAVI DIVISION,
Date: 2024.01.18
12:29:12 +0530
BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. I.C. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 17.12.2013, PASSED IN MVC.NO.2009/2011, ON THE FILE OF
THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER,
ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:356
MFA No. 100956 of 2015
C/W.
MFA No. 100954 of 2015
and MFA No. 100955 of 2015
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN M. F. A. NO.100954 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
SRI. SACHIN SHYAM SAMANT,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, NOW NIL,
R/O: 23, DOMBIVLI, CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY,
NEAR S.K. PATIL SCHOOL, RAMNAGAR,
DOMBIVLI (E)-421 201,
MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA STATE.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. HARISH S.MAIGUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
NWKRTC BELAGAVI DIVISION,
BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. I.C. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 17.12.2013, PASSED IN MVC.NO.2007/2011, ON THE
FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER,
ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN M. F. A. NO.100955 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
SRI. HRISHIKESH UDITANAND MAHAJAN,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, NOW NIL,
R/O: 112, MUNICIPAL ANAMENTS,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:356
MFA No. 100956 of 2015
C/W.
MFA No. 100954 of 2015
and MFA No. 100955 of 2015
BUILDING NO.6, ROOM NO.3,
WORLI, MUMBAI-25, MAHARASHTRA STATE.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
NWKRTC BELAGAVI DIVISION,
BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. I.C. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 17.12.2013, PASSED IN MVC.NO.2008/2011, ON THE
FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER,
ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS, COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Though the matters are listed for admission, by consent
of parties, matters are taken up for final disposal.
2. Heard Shri. Harish S. Maigur, learned counsel for
appellants and Shri. I. C. Patil, learned counsel for respondent.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:356
C/W.
3. In respect of road traffic accident occurred on
01.03.2010 involving a car bearing registration No.MH-43/V-
6002 and a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-29/F-914, on
Kumta-Sirsi road, four claim petitions came to be filed in MVC
Nos.2007/2011, 2008/2011, 2009/2011 and 2010/2011.
4. The claim petitions on contest came to be allowed
by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and AMACT, Belagavi,
by a common judgment and award dated 17.12.2013.
5. The Tribunal took into consideration the rash and
negligent driving of the bus as well as the car involved in the
accident and has fixed the contributory negligence of 25% on
the part of the driver of the car.
6. KSRTC in respect of the award passed in MVC
No.2010/2011 filed an appeal before the Division Bench of this
Court in MFA No.102195/2014 and claimant therein has also
preferred an appeal in MFA No.100957/2015.
7. The Division Bench of this Court by considered
judgment dated 16.02.2022, modified the award and re-
assessed the compensation and also recorded a categorical
finding that 25% of the contributory negligence fixed on the
driver of the car is impermissible having regard to the fact that
NC: 2024:KHC-D:356
C/W.
the charge sheet came to be filed against the driver of the
KSRTC bus.
8. Shri. Harish S. Maigur, learned counsel for the
appellants in all three appeals, contended that in view of the
order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in aforesaid
MFAs' dated 16.02.2022, the appeals need to be allowed by
setting aside 25% contributory negligence attributed to the
driver of the car and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
in respect of all these three claims is ordered to be paid by
KSRTC.
9. He further contended that the claimant in MFA
No.2009/2011 is also entitled for enhancement of
compensation on the head of loss of income during the laid up
period and travelling and attendant charges.
10. Shri. I.C. Patil, learned counsel for the respondent
however fairly submits that the order of the Division Bench in
the aforesaid Miscellaneous First Appeals is not challenged by
the KSRTC and therefore, it has become final and suitable
orders may be passed.
11. Insofar as the enhancement of compensation in
MFA No.2009/2011 is concerned, he has contended that the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:356
C/W.
compensation awarded is just and proper and sought for
maintaining the quantum of compensation in all these three
appeals.
12. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court
perused the material on record meticulously.
13. On such perusal of the material on record, it is
crystal clear that the accident in question that has occurred on
account of negligent driving of the driver of KSRTC bus which
has been properly taken note by the Division Bench of this
Court in the aforesaid appeals.
14. The Division Bench of this Court therefore, rightly
ruled that attributing 25% contributory negligence on the part
of the driver of the car is incorrect and directed that the entire
adjudged quantum of compensation amount is to be paid by
KSRTC to the claimants.
15. Following the finding recorded in the aforesaid
appeals by the Division Bench of this Court, this Court is thus
required to direct the adjudged compensation amount payable
by the KSRTC in all these three matters by setting aside finding
of the Tribunal that 25% contributory negligence attributed to
the driver of the car.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:356
C/W.
16. Insofar as the enhancement of compensation in
respect of claim in MVC No.2009/2011, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the law governing the grant of
compensation prevailed in the year 2011, the Trial Court is
justified in adjudging the quantum of compensation.
17. Accordingly, no case is made out for enhancement
of compensation.
18. Hence, the following order is passed:
ORDER
(i) Appeals are allowed.
(ii) The claimants/appellants are entitled for
the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal in
the impugned judgment to the full extent payable
by the KSRTC by setting aside the finding that 25%
contributory negligence attributed to the driver of
the car.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:356
C/W.
(iii) The KSRTC is granted four weeks time to
deposit the balance compensation amount.
(iv) Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMM
