Karnataka High Court
Mr Ismail vs Mr Aslam Farvez on 4 July, 2024
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:25377
MFA No. 4167/2018
C/W MFA Nos. 4169/2018, 4172/2018,
4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018,
365/2023, 366/ 2023, 367/ 2023,
368/ 2023, 377/ 2023, 381/ 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4167 OF 2018 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NOs. 4169/2018
4172/2018, 4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018,
365 OF 2023, 366/2023, 367/2023, 368/2023,
377 OF 2023, 381 2023 (MV-I)
MFA NO.4167/2018:
BETWEEN:
1. MR. ISMAIL
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
S/O IJJABBA
2. MRS. AWAMMA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
W/O ISMAIL.
Digitally
signed by
NANDINI MS 3. MRS. SHABANA
Location: AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
HIGH
COURT OF D/O ISMAIL.
KARNATAKA
4. MRS. MUSHRATH
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
D/O ISMAIL.
ALL ARE R/AT CELL TRACK
KRISHNAPURA, KATIPALLA
MANGALORE - 575 030.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT, ADV.)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:25377
MFA No. 4167/2018
C/W MFA Nos. 4169/2018, 4172/2018,
4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018,
365/2023, 366/ 2023, 367/ 2023,
368/ 2023, 377/ 2023, 381/ 2023
AND:
1. MR. ASLAM FARVEZ
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
S/O ABDUL KHADAR
R/AT D.NO.2/34, SITE NO. 356,
KATIPALLA, MANGALORE - 575 030.
2. SRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
418005-E-8, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA,
SITAPURA, JAIPURA, RAJASTHAN - 302 022
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PANDURANGA G, ADV., FOR R-1;
SRI B. PRADEEP, ADV., FOR R-2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.09.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1250/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE M.A.C.T. AND III ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALORE, DAKSHINA KANNADA(c/c),
DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
MFA NO.4169/2018:
BETWEEN:
1. MR. HAMEED
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
S/O HASANABBA.
2. MRS. HATEEJAMMA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
W/O HAMEED.
3. MR. ASIF
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
S/O HAMEED.
4. MR. IMTHIYAZ
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
S/O HAMEED.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:25377
MFA No. 4167/2018
C/W MFA Nos. 4169/2018, 4172/2018,
4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018,
365/2023, 366/ 2023, 367/ 2023,
368/ 2023, 377/ 2023, 381/ 2023
5. MRS. RUKSANA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
D/O HAMEED.
6. MR. SHAHID
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
S/O HAMEED.
7. MR. AFREEZ
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
S/O HAMEED.
ALL ARE R/AT NEAR CHOKKABETTU
MASJID, KATIPALLA, MANGALORE - 575 030.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT, ADV.)
AND:
1. MR. ASLAM FARVEZ
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
S/O ABDUL KHADAR
R/AT D.NO.2/34, SITE NO. 356,
KATIPALLA, MANGALORE - 575 030.
2. SRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
418005-E-8, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA,
SITAPURA, JAIPURA, RAJASTHAN - 302 022
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PANDURANGA G, ADV., FOR R-1;
SRI B. PRADEEP, ADV., FOR R-2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.09.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1249/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE M.A.C.T. AND III ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALORE, DAKSHINA KANNADA,
DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:25377
MFA No. 4167/2018
C/W MFA Nos. 4169/2018, 4172/2018,
4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018,
365/2023, 366/ 2023, 367/ 2023,
368/ 2023, 377/ 2023, 381/ 2023
MFA NO.4172/2018:
BETWEEN:
MR. MOHAMMED JAHID
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
S/O HASANABBA
R/AT GAL-49, KATIPALLA
KRISHNBAPURA, SURATHKAL
MANGALORE - 575 014. ....APPELLANT
(BY SRI PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT, ADV.)
AND:
1. MR. ASLAM FARVEZ
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
S/O ABDUL KHADAR
R/AT D.NO.2/34, SITE NO. 356,
KATIPALLA, MANGALORE - 575 030.
2. SRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
418005-E-8, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA,
SITAPURA, JAIPURA, RAJASTHAN - 302 022
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PANDURANGA G, ADV., FOR R-1;
SRI B. PRADEEP, ADV., FOR R-2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.09.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1200/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE M.A.C.T. AND III ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALORE, D.K., DISMISSING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
MFA NO.4173/2018:
BETWEEN:
MR. AFRID
AGED 18 YEARS
S/O LATE ABBUBOKKAR
R/AT GL-49, CHOKKABUTTU
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:25377
MFA No. 4167/2018
C/W MFA Nos. 4169/2018, 4172/2018,
4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018,
365/2023, 366/ 2023, 367/ 2023,
368/ 2023, 377/ 2023, 381/ 2023
KATIPALLA, KRISHNAPURA
MANGALORE - 575 014. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT, ADV.)
AND:
1. MR. ASLAM FARVEZ
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
S/O ABDUL KHADAR
R/AT D.NO.2/34, SITE NO. 356,
KATIPALLA, MANGALORE - 575 030.
2. SRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
418005-E-8, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA,
SITAPURA, JAIPURA, RAJASTHAN - 302 022
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PANDURANGA G, ADV., FOR R-1;
SRI B. PRADEEP, ADV., FOR R-2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.09.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1197/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE M.A.C.T. AND III ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALORE, DAKSHINA KANNADA,
DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
MFA NO.4175/2018:
BETWEEN:
MR. NADEEM
AGED 21 YEARS
S/O LATE ABBOBOKKAR
R/AT RESHMA MANZIL
CHOKKABETTU, 8TH BLOCK
SURATHKAL, MANGALORE - 575 014.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT, ADV.)
AND:
1. MR. ASLAM FARVEZ
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
S/O ABDUL KHADAR
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:25377
MFA No. 4167/2018
C/W MFA Nos. 4169/2018, 4172/2018,
4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018,
365/2023, 366/ 2023, 367/ 2023,
368/ 2023, 377/ 2023, 381/ 2023
R/AT D.NO.2/34, SITE NO. 356,
KATIPALLA, MANGALORE - 575 030.
2. SRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
418005-E-8, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA,
SITAPURA, JAIPURA, RAJASTHAN - 302 022
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PANDURANGA G, ADV., FOR R-1;
SRI B. PRADEEP, ADV., FOR R-2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.09.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1195/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE M.A.C.T. AND III ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALORE, D.K., DISMISSING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
MFA NO.4176/2018:
BETWEEN:
1. MRS. RAZIYA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
W/O ASHRAF.
2. MR. ISMAIL
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
S/O IJJABBA
3. MRS. AWAMMA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
W/O ISMAIL.
4. MRS. SHABANA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
D/O ISMAIL.
5. MRS. MUSHRATH
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
D/O ISMAIL.
ALL ARE R/AT CELL TRACK
KRISHNAPURA, KATIPALLA
MANGALORE - 575 030.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT, ADV.)
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:25377
MFA No. 4167/2018
C/W MFA Nos. 4169/2018, 4172/2018,
4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018,
365/2023, 366/ 2023, 367/ 2023,
368/ 2023, 377/ 2023, 381/ 2023
AND:
1. MR. ASLAM FARVEZ
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
S/O ABDUL KHADAR
R/AT D.NO.2/34, SITE NO. 356,
KATIPALLA, MANGALORE - 575 030.
2. SRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
418005-E-8, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA,
SITAPURA, JAIPURA, RAJASTHAN - 302 022
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PANDURANGA G, ADV., FOR R-1;
SRI B. PRADEEP, ADV., FOR R-2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.09.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.773/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE M.A.C.T. AND III ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALORE, D.K (c/c), DISMISSING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
MFA NO.365/2023:
BETWEEN:
MR. IMRAN
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O B.A. LATHEEF
R/AT SITE NO.125
8TH BLOCK, CHOKKABETTU
SURATHKAL, MANGALORE -575 104.
...APPELANT
(BY SRI PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT, ADV.)
AND:
1. MR. ASLAM FARVEZ
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
S/O ABDUL KHADAR
R/AT D.NO.2/34, SITE NO. 356,
KATIPALLA, MANGALORE - 575 030.
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:25377
MFA No. 4167/2018
C/W MFA Nos. 4169/2018, 4172/2018,
4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018,
365/2023, 366/ 2023, 367/ 2023,
368/ 2023, 377/ 2023, 381/ 2023
2. SRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
418005-E-8, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA,
SITAPURA, JAIPURA, RAJASTHAN - 302 022
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ARUN KUMAR R, ADV., FOR R-1;
SRI B. PRADEEP, ADV., FOR R-2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.09.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1198/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE M.A.C.T. AND III ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALORE, DAKSHINA KANNADA,
DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
MFA NO.366/2023:
BETWEEN:
MR. MOHAMMAD FAIZAL
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
S/O ABDUL RAZAK
R/AT RESHMA MANZIL
CHOKKABETTU, 8TH BLOCK
SURATHKAL, MANGALORE - 575 014.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT, ADV.)
AND:
1. MR. ASLAM FARVEZ
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
S/O ABDUL KHADAR
R/AT D.NO.2/34, SITE NO. 356,
KATIPALLA, MANGALORE - 575 030.
2. SRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
418005-E-8, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA,
SITAPURA, JAIPURA, RAJASTHAN - 302 022
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ARUN KUMAR R, ADV., FOR R-1;
SRI B. PRADEEP, ADV., FOR R-2)
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:25377
MFA No. 4167/2018
C/W MFA Nos. 4169/2018, 4172/2018,
4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018,
365/2023, 366/ 2023, 367/ 2023,
368/ 2023, 377/ 2023, 381/ 2023
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.09.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.11194/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE, M.A.C.T. AND III ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALORE, D.K., DISMISSING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
MFA NO.367/2023:
BETWEEN:
MR. ABDUL AMEER
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O HASANABBA
R/AT GL-49, KATIPALLA
KRISHNBAPURA, SURATHKAL
MANGALORE - 575 014.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT, ADV.)
AND:
1. MR. ASLAM FARVEZ
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
S/O ABDUL KHADAR
R/AT D.NO.2/34, SITE NO. 356,
KATIPALLA, MANGALORE - 575 030.
2. SRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
418005-E-8, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA,
SITAPURA, JAIPURA, RAJASTHAN - 302 022
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ARUN KUMAR R, ADV., FOR R-1;
SRI B. PRADEEP, ADV., FOR R-2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.09.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1196/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE M.A.C.T. AND III ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALORE, D.K., DISMISSING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25377
MFA No. 4167/2018
C/W MFA Nos. 4169/2018, 4172/2018,
4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018,
365/2023, 366/ 2023, 367/ 2023,
368/ 2023, 377/ 2023, 381/ 2023
MFA NO.368/2023:
BETWEEN:
MR. SHAMEER
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O ABBAS
R/AT 8TH BLOCK, CHOKKABETTU
KRISHNAPURA, SURATHKAL
MANGALORE - 575 014.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT, ADV.)
AND:
1. MR. ASLAM FARVEZ
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
S/O ABDUL KHADAR
R/AT D.NO.2/34, SITE NO. 356,
KATIPALLA, MANGALORE - 575 030.
2. SRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
418005-E-8, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA,
SITAPURA, JAIPURA, RAJASTHAN - 302 022
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ARUN KUMAR R, ADV., FOR R-1;
SRI B. PRADEEP, ADV., FOR R-2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.09.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1193/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE M.A.C.T. AND III ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALORE, D.K., DISMISSING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
MFA NO.377/2023:
BETWEEN:
MR. MOHAMMED ASHRAF
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O ABDUL M
R/AT NEAR BADRIYA HOTEL
RAILWAY BRIDGE, KANA KATLA
SURATHKAL, MANGALORE - 575 014.
...APPELLANT
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25377
MFA No. 4167/2018
C/W MFA Nos. 4169/2018, 4172/2018,
4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018,
365/2023, 366/ 2023, 367/ 2023,
368/ 2023, 377/ 2023, 381/ 2023
(BY SRI PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT, ADV.)
AND:
1. MR. ASLAM FARVEZ
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
S/O ABDUL KHADAR
R/AT D.NO.2/34, SITE NO. 356,
KATIPALLA, MANGALORE - 575 030.
2. SRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
418005-E-8, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA,
SITAPURA, JAIPURA, RAJASTHAN - 302 022
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ARUN KUMAR R, ADV., FOR R-1;
SRI B. PRADEEP, ADV., FOR R-2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.09.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1201/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE M.A.C.T. AND III ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALORE, D.K., DISMISSING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
MFA NO.381/2023:
BETWEEN:
MR. AZARUDDIN
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O HASANABBA
R/AT GL-49, NEAR MASIJID
8TH BLOCK, CHOKKABETTU
KATIPALLA, SURATHKAL
MANGALORE - 575 014.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT, ADV.)
AND:
1. MR. ASLAM FARVEZ
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
S/O ABDUL KHADAR
R/AT D.NO.2/34, SITE NO. 356,
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25377
MFA No. 4167/2018
C/W MFA Nos. 4169/2018, 4172/2018,
4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018,
365/2023, 366/ 2023, 367/ 2023,
368/ 2023, 377/ 2023, 381/ 2023
KATIPALLA, MANGALORE - 575 030.
2. SRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
418005-E-8, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA,
SITAPURA, JAIPURA, RAJASTHAN - 302 022
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ARUN KUMAR R, ADV., FOR R-1;
SRI B. PRADEEP, ADV., FOR R-2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.09.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1199/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE M.A.C.T. AND III ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALORE, D.K., DISMISSING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
These appeals are filed by the claimants under
Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for setting
aside the judgment and award dated 30.09.2015 passed in
MVC No.1193/2011, MVC No.1194/2011, MVC
No.1195/2011, MVC No.1196/2011, MVC 1197/2011, MVC
No.1198/2011, MVC No.1199/2011, MVC No.1200/2011,
MVC No.1201/2011, MVC No.1249/2011, MVC
No.1250/2011 & MVC No.773/2011 by the Court of III
Addl. Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Mangaluru, D.K,
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal').
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25377
C/W MFA Nos. 4169/2018, 4172/2018,
4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018,
365/2023, 366/ 2023, 367/ 2023,
368/ 2023, 377/ 2023, 381/ 2023
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the
appellants and learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.2 - Insurance Company.
3. The case of the petitioners before the Tribunal
was that on 15.02.2011 at about 12.15 p.m, the
petitioners and the deceased persons were proceeding
along with others in a Tata Siyar Car bearing registration
No.KA-18-P-8323. When the car reached to a place called
Padupanambur minor bridge, at that time, pick up vehicle
bearing registration No.KA-19-A-9685 came from same
direction in a rash and negligent manner on NH-17,
dashed to the above said Car from hind right side. Due to
which, the car was fell down to a ditch. As a result, the
petitioners & other inmates sustained grievous injury and
some of the inmates were died in the said accident. The
police registered FIR against unknown pick up vehicle and
subsequently police seized the vehicle and filed charge
sheet. Accordingly, claimants have filed the claim petitions
claiming compensation on various heads for the injuries
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25377
C/W MFA Nos. 4169/2018, 4172/2018,
4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018,
365/2023, 366/ 2023, 367/ 2023,
368/ 2023, 377/ 2023, 381/ 2023
sustained by them and also legal representatives of
deceased who died in the accident have filed claim
petitions.
4. Respondent No.1 - owner of the vehicle has
appeared before the Tribunal and filed his written
statement by denying rash and negligent driving of the
driver, the injury sustained by the claimants and death of
the deceased. He also submits that the compensation
claimed is exorbitant and excessive and contended that
this accident was occurred due to negligent driving of the
driver of Tata Siyar Car but not the driver of the pick up
vehicle. It is also contended that the driver of the Siyar
vehicle had applied sudden brake on the middle of the
road and due to sudden stopping the car without giving
signal, there was collusion between the pick up vehicle
and Siyar vehicle and it is also contended that petitions
are bad for non joinder of proper parties and further
denied the other averments of the petition and has
contended that the driver was holding valid license as on
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25377
C/W MFA Nos. 4169/2018, 4172/2018,
4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018,
365/2023, 366/ 2023, 367/ 2023,
368/ 2023, 377/ 2023, 381/ 2023
the date of accident and the vehicle was insured with
respondent No.2. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the
claim petitions.
5. Respondent No.2 - Insurance company has also
filed statement of objection by denying all the averments
made in the claim petitions and submits that the
petitioners have suppressed the fact that they have filed
petitions for unlawful gain and denied the accident and
injury sustained by the claimants and death of the
deceased. However, they admitted the fact that the
vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 and if any
liability, interest are not more than 6%. Hence, prays for
dismissal of the claim petitions.
6. Based upon the pleadings, the Tribunal has
framed the following issues:
ISSUES IN MVC.NOS.1193,2011, 1194/2011, 1195,2011,
1196/2011, 1197/2011, 1198/2011, 1199/2011,
1200/2011 AND MVC.NO.1201/2011
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25377
C/W MFA Nos. 4169/2018, 4172/2018,
4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018,
365/2023, 366/ 2023, 367/ 2023,
368/ 2023, 377/ 2023, 381/ 2023
1) Whether the petitioner proves that
accident occurred on 15.02.2011 at about 12.15
p.m, near Padupanambur minor bridge,
Padupanambur village, Mangalore was due to
rash and negligent driving of the driver of pick up
bearing Reg.No.KA-19-A-9685 and he sustained
injuries in the accident?
2. Whether the respondents prove that
the accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of Tata Siyar
Car bearing Reg.No.KA-18-P-8323?
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, to what extent and from
whom?
4. What order or award?
1. Whether the petitioners prove that
accident occurred on 15.02.2011 at about
12.15 p.m, near Padupanambur minor bridge,
Padupanambur village, Mangalore was due to
rash and negligent driving of the driver of pick
up bearing Reg.No.KA-19-A-9685 and due to
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25377
C/W MFA Nos. 4169/2018, 4172/2018,
4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018,
365/2023, 366/ 2023, 367/ 2023,
368/ 2023, 377/ 2023, 381/ 2023
the accident Imran succumbed to the injuries
sustained in the accident?
2. Whether the respondents prove that
the accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of Tata Siyar
Car bearing Reg.No.KA-18-P-8323?
3. Whether the petition is bad for non
joinder of necessary parties?
4. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, to what extent and from
whom?
5. What order or award?
1. Whether the petitioners prove that
accident occurred on 15.02.2011 at about
12.15 p.m, near Padupanambur minor bridge,
Padupanambur village, Mangalore was due to
rash and negligent driving of the driver of pick
up bearing Reg.No.KA-19-A-9685 and due to
the accident Asif succumbed to the injuries
sustained in the accident?
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25377
C/W MFA Nos. 4169/2018, 4172/2018,
4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018,
365/2023, 366/ 2023, 367/ 2023,
368/ 2023, 377/ 2023, 381/ 2023
2. Whether the respondents prove that
the accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of Tata Siyar
Car bearing Reg.No.KA-18-P-8323?
3. Whether the petition is bad for non
joinder of necessary parties?
4. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, to what extent and from
whom?
5. What order or award?
1. Whether the petitioners prove that the
deceased Ashraf had sustained certain fatal
injuries in a road traffic accident said to have
been occurred on 15.02.2011 at about 12.15
p.m, near Padupanambur minor bridge,
Padupanambur village, Mangalore was due to
rash and negligent driving of the driver of pick
up bearing Reg.No.KA-19-A-9685?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled
for compensation? If so, to what amount and
from whom they are entitled to?
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25377
C/W MFA Nos. 4169/2018, 4172/2018,
4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018,
365/2023, 366/ 2023, 367/ 2023,
368/ 2023, 377/ 2023, 381/ 2023
3. What decree or order?
7. The petitioners in order to prove their case have
examined themselves as PWs.1 to Pws.13 and they got
marked 118 documents as Exs.P1 to P118. On the other
hand, respondent No.1- owner of the vehicle did not led
any evidence. However, respondent No.2 - Insurance
Company examined Police Inspector as RW1 and Legal
Officer of Insurance Company as RW2 and they got
marked one document as Ex.R1 - Insurance Policy.
8. After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal
answered issue No.1 in all cases in the negative and issues
Nos.2 and 3 in the affirmative in favour of respondent
No.2 - Insurance Company and issue No.4 in the negative
and dismissed all the claim petitions vide impugned
judgment and award dated 30.09.2015. Being aggrieved
by the dismissal of the claim petitions, the claimants are
before this Court.
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25377
C/W MFA Nos. 4169/2018, 4172/2018,
4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018,
365/2023, 366/ 2023, 367/ 2023,
368/ 2023, 377/ 2023, 381/ 2023
9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants
has seriously contended that the accident was occurred
due to rash and negligent driving of the pick up van and
driver of the van himself examined as RW1 and has
admitted in his written statement that due to sudden
stopping of the vehicle by the driver of the Tata Siyar Car,
there was collusion with car, due to which the accident
was occurred and he also taken contention that the
negligence is on part of the driver of Tata Siyar Car, where
the injured and deceased were traveling. But there was no
evidence let in by respondent No.1. However, the police
investigate the matter and filed charge sheet. The charge
sheet is not challenged by the respondents before the
competent authority. There is no other eye witness
examined by respondent No.2 to disprove the case of the
claimants. The Tribunal committed error in dismissing the
entire claim petitions merely because the owner and
insurer of Tata Siyar Car was not a party and hence
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25377
C/W MFA Nos. 4169/2018, 4172/2018,
4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018,
365/2023, 366/ 2023, 367/ 2023,
368/ 2023, 377/ 2023, 381/ 2023
prayed to set-aside the findings on issue Nos.1, 2 and 3
and remit back the matter before the Tribunal.
10. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 seriously
objected the appeals and contended that the Tribunal
considering the evidence of RWs.1 and 2 and also the
evidence of claimants had rightly dismissed the claim
petitions as there is no damage found on the vehicle of
pickup van. Such being the case, the very involvement of
the vehicle of the respondent was doubtful. The owner of
the pick up vehicle lives in the same of village of the
injured. There was collusion between them and therefore a
false case has been filed against the driver of the pick up
van and as there is no damage caused to the vehicle, the
question of presuming the vehicle was involved in the
accident does not arise. Even otherwise, the owner and
insurer of the Tata Siyar Car are not made as party. Such
being the case, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the
claim petitions. Hence, prays for dismissal of the appeals.
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25377
C/W MFA Nos. 4169/2018, 4172/2018,
4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018,
365/2023, 366/ 2023, 367/ 2023,
368/ 2023, 377/ 2023, 381/ 2023
11. Having heard the arguments and perused the
records, the points that would arise for my consideration
are:
"1. Whether the petitioners prove that the
accident dated 15.02.2011 at about 12.15
p.m, near Padupanambur Bridge, occurred
due to rash and negligent driving of the driver
of pick up van bearing registration No.KA-19-
A-9685 and due to which the injured
sustained injuries and some of the persons
have died in the accident?
2. Whether the judgment of dismissal
passed by the Tribunal calls for interference?
3. What order?"
12. On perusal of records, it is revealed that
claimants have examined themselves as PWs1 to 13 in
claim petitions. PW1 is the complainant who filed
complaint before the police and also one of the injured in
this case. He has categorically stated that he was traveling
in Tata Siyar Car bearing registration No.KA-18-P-8323
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25377
C/W MFA Nos. 4169/2018, 4172/2018,
4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018,
365/2023, 366/ 2023, 367/ 2023,
368/ 2023, 377/ 2023, 381/ 2023
along with other inmates on 15.02.2011, when they
reached near padupanambur Bridge, at that time, a pick
up van bearing registration No.KA-19-A-9685 came behind
and touched the vehicle on Mangaluru - Udupi Highway.
Due to which the vehicle of the claimants had fell into the
ditch and dashed to a tree. As a result, three of the
inmates of the Car died and others have sustained injury.
He also stated that immediately they have been shifted to
hospital where the police have obtained statement and
registered FIR. After investigation, the police have filed
charge sheet.
13. It is pertinent to note that respondent No.1 who
is the owner of the pick up van has taken a specific plea
that the accident was occurred due to negligent driving of
the driver of Tata Siyar Car and he has stated that while
going on main highway, the driver of the Tata Siyar Car
suddenly applied brake. Due to which, the pick up van
dashed to the Tata Siyar Car. As a result, Tata Siyar Car
fell down to a ditch and met with an accident. This
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25377
C/W MFA Nos. 4169/2018, 4172/2018,
4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018,
365/2023, 366/ 2023, 367/ 2023,
368/ 2023, 377/ 2023, 381/ 2023
admission made by respondent No.1 in written statement
was not disputed or accepted by the Tribunal. Respondent
No.1 has not led any evidence to prove that accident was
occurred solely due to negligent driving of the Tata Siyar
Car but not due to driver of the pick up van. However,
respondent No.2 examined RW.1 wherein he has stated
that there is no visible damage on pickup vehicle.
Therefore, it is contended that there is no chance of
involvement of offending vehicle in the accident. In this
regard, this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court in similar case has
held that merely there is no visible damage on the vehicle
that itself is not a ground to reject the claim of the
claimant or any contributory negligent on part of the
driver of the vehicle which was met with an accident.
Investigation was done by the Police and they have filed
charge sheet. The charge sheet was not challenged by any
of the respondents before the court of law. That apart,
proving the accident before the Tribunal or in civil cases is
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25377
C/W MFA Nos. 4169/2018, 4172/2018,
4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018,
365/2023, 366/ 2023, 367/ 2023,
368/ 2023, 377/ 2023, 381/ 2023
based upon the degree of preponderance of probabilities
and not on the degree of beyond all reasonable doubt as
like in criminal cases. It is well settled by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the catena of decisions that even the driver of the
offending vehicle was not exonerated in criminal cases or
acquitted or convicted that will not binding on the Tribunal
or civil court while deciding the issue of negligence. Such
being the case, the Tribunal has committed an error in
holding merely there is no visible damage on the pick up
vehicle which was met with an accident and there is no
negligence on part of the driver.
14. The claimants were examined as PWs.1 to 13.
Some of them were injured eye witnesses and they have
categorically stated that accident was occurred due to rash
and negligent driving of the driver of the Tata Siyar Car.
Such being the case, there are no eye witnesses and
injured witnesses are not correct. That apart, the
insurance company has not made any separate
investigation through Investigation Officer or not
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25377
C/W MFA Nos. 4169/2018, 4172/2018,
4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018,
365/2023, 366/ 2023, 367/ 2023,
368/ 2023, 377/ 2023, 381/ 2023
examined any injured or any eye witnesses or either any
toll department, to show pick up vehicle was not
proceeding on the road and also not examined any RTO
officer to show that pick up vehicle was not having permit
on this road. Such being the case, merely on the evidence
of respondent No.2 - insurance Company that no visible
damage on the vehicle that itself is not a ground to give
negative finding as against the evidence of PWs.1 to 13
especially PW.3 and the entire police documents depicts
that Ex.P.1 is copy complaint/FIR, Ex.P3 is spot mahazar,
Ex.P6 is charge sheet. Therefore, I am of the opinion that
findings of the Tribunal in issue No.1 is not correct in
holding that this accident was not occurred due to rash
and negligent driving of respondent No.1 pick up van.
15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of DINESH
KUMAR J ALIAS DINESH J V. NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS. (2018) 1 SCC 750 at
paragraph No.7 has held as under:
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25377
C/W MFA Nos. 4169/2018, 4172/2018,
4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018,
365/2023, 366/ 2023, 367/ 2023,
368/ 2023, 377/ 2023, 381/ 2023
"7. Insofar as the judgment of the High
Court is concerned, the Division Bench has placed a
considerable degree of importance on the fact that
there was no visible damage to the lorry but that it
was the motorcycle which had suffered damage and
that there was no eyewitness. We are in agreement
with the submission which has been urged on
behalf of the appellant that plea of contributory
negligence was accepted purely on the basis of
conjecture and without any evidence. Once the
finding that there was contributory negligence on
the part of the appellant is held to be without any
basis, the second aspect which weighed both with
the Tribunal and the High Court, that the appellant
had not produced the driving licence, would be of
no relevance. This aspect has been considered in a
judgment of this Court in Sudhir Kumar where it
was held as follows : (SCC p. 439, paras 9-10)
"9. If a person drives a vehicle without a
licence, he commits an offence. The same,
by itself, in our opinion, may not lead to a
finding of negligence as regards the accident.
It has been held by the courts below that it
was the driver of the mini truck who was
driving rashly and negligently. It is one thing
to say that the appellant was not possessing
any licence but no finding of fact has been
arrived at that he was driving the two-
wheeler rashly and negligently. If he was not
driving rashly and negligently which
contributed to the accident, we fail to see as
to how, only because he was not having a
licence, he would be held to be guilty of
contributory negligence.
10. The matter might have been different
if by reason of his rash and negligent driving,
the accident had taken place."
16. The Tribunal has wrongly dismissed the claim
petitions merely because the owner and insurer of Tata
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25377
C/W MFA Nos. 4169/2018, 4172/2018,
4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018,
365/2023, 366/ 2023, 367/ 2023,
368/ 2023, 377/ 2023, 381/ 2023
Siyar Car are not parties, as offending vehicle belongs to
respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 insurer. Such being
the case, the findings of the Tribunal is required to be set-
aside and I hold that this accident was occurred due to
rash and negligent driving of the pick up vehicle bearing
registration No.KA-19-A-9685 due to which the appellants
have sustained injury and Imran, Asif and Ashraf were
died in the accident. The Tribunal also not computed any
compensation. Such being the case, it is necessary for this
Court to remand the matter back to Tribunal to
compute/assess the compensation. Therefore, by setting
aside the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the
matter is remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in
accordance with law. Hence, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
I. The appeals are allowed.
II. The impugned judgment and award dated
30.09.2015 passed in MVC No.1193/2011,
- 29 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25377
C/W MFA Nos. 4169/2018, 4172/2018,
4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018,
365/2023, 366/ 2023, 367/ 2023,
368/ 2023, 377/ 2023, 381/ 2023
MVC No.1194/2011, MVC No.1195/2011,
MVC No.1196/2011, MVC No.1197/2011,
MVC No.1198/2011, MVC No.1199/2011,
MVC No.1200/2011, MVC No.1201/2011,
MVC No.1249/2011, MVC No.1250/2011 &
MVC No.773/2011 by the Court of III Addl.
Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Mangaluru, D.K,
is set aside.
III. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for
fresh consideration of issue No.1 and
compute necessary compensation to
claimants in accordance with law and
dispose of the matter within six months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
IV. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal
on 05.08.2024 without awaiting any
further notice.
V. Both the parties are given liberty to adduce
evidence, both oral and documentary.
VI. Registry is directed to transmit the TCR
along with copy of this judgment to the
Tribunal forthwith.
- 30 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25377
C/W MFA Nos. 4169/2018, 4172/2018,
4173/2018, 4175/2018, 4176/2018,
365/2023, 366/ 2023, 367/ 2023,
368/ 2023, 377/ 2023, 381/ 2023
VII. All contentions of the parties are kept open
VIII. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NMS
