Karnataka High Court
Bhimabai And Ors vs M/S Reliable Roadway Agency And Anr on 6 June, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3648-DB
MFA No. 201807 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 201806 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201807 OF 2018 (MV-D)
C/W
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201806 OF 2018
IN M.F.A NO. 201807 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
1. BHIMABAI
W/O BHAGWAT @ BHAGWAN LONDE,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD.
Digitally signed
2. DADARAO
by VARSHA N S/O BHAGWAT @ BHAGWAN LONDE,
RASALKAR
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: NIL.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
3. CHEMUBAI
W/O HARIBA LONDE,
AGE: 84 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
ALL ARE R/O SIDDAPUR,
TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYAPUR.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SANGANAGOUDA V BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S RELIABLE ROADWAY AGENCY
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3648-DB
MFA No. 201807 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 201806 of 2018
REP. BY WAJIDA BEGUM,
5-6-247/3, CHAR KHANDEL,
AGHAPUR HYDERABAD,
ANDHRA PRADESH -560 001.
OR
M/S RELIABLE ROADWAY AGENCY
ROOM NO.208, P1-1,
JALARAM MARKET,
SEC-19C, VASHI NAVI MUMBAI
MAHARASHTRA - 416416.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED-201208,
CRYSTAL PLAZA, OPP: INFINITY MALL LINK ROAD,
ANDHERI (WEST), MUMBAI-400058.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUDARSHAN M, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH )
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT,
PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.10.2017 PASSED BY THE
COURT OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDE AND MEMBER,
MACT NO.VII, AT VIJAYAPURA, IN M.V.C.NO.2071/2014, IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN M.F.A NO. 201806 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
1. LAXMAN S/O ABA JADHAV,
AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC: NIL.
2. BAINABAI W/O LAXMAN JADHAV,
AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: NILL.
3. SUSHJILA W/O BHIMARAO JADHAV,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD.
4. PANDURANG S/O BHIMARAO JADHAV,
AGE: 21 YEARS, M/G BY APPELLANT NO.3
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3648-DB
MFA No. 201807 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 201806 of 2018
5. ABA S/O BHIMARAO JADHAV
AGE: 19 YEARS, M/G BY APPELLANT NO.3.
ALL ARE R/O SIDDAPUR,
TQ. AND DISTRICT: VIJAYAPURA - 586101.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SANGANAGOUDA V BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S RELIABLE ROADWAY AGENCY
REP. BY WAJIDA BEGUM,
5-6-247/3, CHAR KHANDEL,
AGHAPUR HYDERABAD,
ANDHRA PRADESH -560 001.
OR
M/S RELIABLE ROADWAY AGENCY
ROOM NO.208, P1-1, JALARAM MARKET,
SEC-19C, VASHI NAVI MUMBAI
MAHARASHTRA - 416416.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED-201 208,
CRYSTAL PLAZA,
OPP: INFINITY MALL LINK ROAD,
ANDHERI (WEST), MUMBAI-400 058.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUDARSHAN M, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WIHT )
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT,
PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.10.2017 PASSED BY THE
COURT OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDE AND MEMBER,
MACT NO.VII, AT VIJAYAPURA, IN M.V.C.NO.2070/2014, IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY RAJESH RAI K J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3648-DB
MFA No. 201807 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 201806 of 2018
JUDGMENT
These two appeals are filed by the claimants
challenging the judgment and order dated 24.10.2017 by
the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Member MACT VII,
Vijayapura (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in
M.V.C.No.2070 and 2071/2014, wherein the Tribunal
rejected the claim petitions filed by the appellants for
grant of compensation under Section 166 of Motor
Vehicles Act 1998 in a common judgment.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are
referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.
3. The facts giving rise to the filing of these
appeals briefly stated are that:
On 20.08.2014 at about 2:00 p.m., near Modnimb on
Pune-Solapur road, both the deceased persons were
proceeding on motorcycle bearing Registration No.MH-
13/S-9515 going towards Mohol from Tembhurni side. The
motorcycle was ridden by the deceased Bhimarao Laxman
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3648-DB
Jadhav i.e., (husband and father of claimants in
M.V.C.No.2070/2014) and the deceased Bhagawat was the
pillion rider i.e., (husband and father of claimants in
M.V.C.No.2071/2014), the deceased Bhimarao Laxman
Jadhav was riding motorcycle in slow and cautious
manner. At that time, the truck bearing Reg.No.MH-43/U-
8722 was going ahead of the motorcycle and driver of the
said truck abruptly stopped the truck without giving any
signal, that too in the middle of the road. Therefore,
having no alternative, the deceased dashed his motorcycle
to the said truck, which caused an accident. By the said
accident, both the deceased persons sustained grievous
injuries on several parts of their body and died at the spot.
Since the accident occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of the driver of truck bearing Registration No.MH-
43/U-8722, the claimants filed separate claim petitions
before the Tribunal for grant of compensation against the
driver of the offending vehicle i.e., the truck.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3648-DB
4. After service of notice, respondent No.1
remained ex-parte in the both the claim petitions.
However, respondent No.2 appeared and filed a written
statement denying the contents of the claim petitions and
sought for dismissal of the claim petitions.
5. In the written statement it is contended that
the First Information Statement dated 27.08.2014 lodged
by one Dadarao Londe the son of deceased Bhagawat, who
was a pillion rider of motorcycle bearing Registration
No.MH-13/S-9515, before the Police that the alleged
accident took place due to the negligence of the deceased
Bhimarao Laxman Jadhav who was riding the said
motorcycle. The provisions of Section 166 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 do not intend to grant compensation to
the persons who were negligent in causing accident.
Hence, both the petitions are not at all maintainable.
6. On the basis of pleadings, the Tribunal framed
relevant issues in both the appeals for consideration.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3648-DB
7. In order to substantiate the case of the
claimants, claimant No.1 in M.V.C.No.2071/2014
(Appellant No.1 in MFA No.201807/2018) examined as
PW.1 and claimant No.3 in M.V.C.No.2070/2014 (Appellant
No.3 in MFA No.201806/2018) examined as PW.2 and also
one eyewitness examined as PW.3 and got marked 10
documents as per Exs.P1 to P10. On the other hand, the
respondent No.2-Insurance Company examined one
witness as RW.1 and got marked 2 documents as per
Exs.R1 and 2.
8. After assessment of oral and documentary
evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petitions filed
by the claimants. Challenge to the same is lis before this
Court.
9. We have heard the learned counsel Sri
Sanganagouda V. Biradar for appellants in both the
appeals and learned counsel Sri Sudarshan M., for
respondent No.2-Insurance Company in both the appeals.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3648-DB
10. It is the primary contention of the learned
counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal has failed to
appreciate the fact that the respondent has neither
produced the spot sketch nor examined the driver of the
insured vehicle/offended vehicle and also neither entered
the witness box to depose that the accident has taken
place due to the negligence of the deceased i.e., the rider
of the motorcycle.
11. He would further contend that the appellants
seeks permission of this Hon'ble Court to amend the claim
petition Under Sections 166 to 163-A of the Motor Vehicles
Act and if the claim petition is filed Under Section 163-A of
the Motor Vehicles Act, two vehicles involved in the
alleged accident, the appellants are not required to
establish the negligence aspect, hence, they are entitled
for the compensation. Accordingly, he prays to allow the
appeal by setting aside the judgment passed by the
Tribunal.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3648-DB
12. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent
No.2/Insurance Company would contend that the Tribunal
after meticulously considering the documents and
evidence available on record, rightly dismissed the claim
petition in a well reasoned judgment, which does not call
for any interference. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the
appeal.
13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
so also having perused the records made available before
us, the only point that would arise for our consideration is:
"Whether the judgment and order
passed by the Tribunal suffers from
perversity and requires any interference
by this Court?"
14. As could be seen from records, it is the case of
the appellants that, due to the rash and negligent driving
of the driver of the truck bearing Registration No.MH-
43/U-8722, who was driving the truck ahead of the
motorcycle of the deceased persons, abruptly stopped the
truck without giving any signal in the middle of the road.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3648-DB
Therefore, having no alternative, the deceased dashed to
the said truck which results to an accident. As a result,
both the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to
the said injuries. In Order to establish the fact, petitioner
No.1 in M.V.C.No.2071/2014 and petitioner No.3 in
M.V.C.No.2070/2014 examined themselves as P.Ws.No.1
and 2 respectively and reiterated averments of their
respective petitions. They have produced Ex.P1-true copy
of the First Information Report, Ex.P2-true copy of First
Information Statement, Ex.P3-true copy of Spot Mahazar,
Ex.P4-true copy of inquest of Bhimarao Laxman Jadhav,
Ex.P5-true copy of Inquest of Bhagawat, Exs.P6 and 8-the
post-mortem reports and Ex.P9-the Challan. On perusal of
these documents, the same depicts that the First
Information Report was lodged against the deceased
Bhimarao Laxman Jadhav for the offences punishable
under Sections 279, 304-A of IPC, 1860 and offences
punishable under Sections 3(1), 181, 183 and 184 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Further, the evidence of PW.2-
the First Informant discloses that on 20.08.2014,
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3648-DB
petitioner No.2 in M.V.C.No.2071/2014 came to the Police
station and informed that at about 2:00 p.m. he received
an information regarding occurrence of the accident
through phone. He came to the spot and noticed that his
father as well as the rider of the motorcycle i.e., Bhimarao
Laxman Jadhav were lying dead. After that, on
21.08.2014, Police conducted spot mahazar and noticed
that a truck bearing Registration No.MH-43/U-8722 was in
stationed condition with the goods and another Kawasaki
motorcycle bearing Registration No.MH-13/9516 was fully
in a damaged condition. On being enquired, Police came to
know that the deceased Bhimarao Laxman Jadhav drove
the said motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed to parked truck which resulted to an accident.
Accordingly Ex.P9-the Challan/charge sheet is also filed
against the deceased Bhimarao Laxman Jadhav for the
offences punishable Under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC,
1860.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3648-DB
15. The claimants have also adduced evidence of
P.W.3-Bapu S/o Baburao Lokhande who is stated to be an
eyewitness. He stated that the accident had occurred on
20.08.2014, at about 2.00 p.m., near Modnimb on Pune-
Solapur road. He was present at the place of accident, he
was going on the motorcycle towards Mohol from
Tembhurni side, the deceased was riding the motorcycle
bearing Registration No.MH-13/S-9515, in a slow and
cautious manner. At that time, the truck bearing
Registration No.MH-43/U-8722 was going ahead of
motorcycle of the deceased persons, abruptly stopped
without giving any signal that too in the middle of the
road. Therefore, having no alternative, the deceased
dashed to the said truck which resulted to an accident. As
a result, both deceased persons sustained grievous
injuries to all over the body. According to him, accident
had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
driver of truck bearing Registration No.MH-43/U-8722.
However, on careful perusal of Exs.P1 to P9 the
investigation reports, clearly reveals that the accident in
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3648-DB
question was caused due to the rash and negligent act of
the rider of the motorcycle i.e., deceased Bhimarao
Laxman Jadhav. On perusal of Ex.P3-spot mahazar, the
same disclose that the truck had stationed on the extreme
left side of the road and the accident was caused in the
middle of the road. Further, the truck had caused damage
only towards back side bumper and motorcycle had caused
damage to its front wheel, handle. The name of PW.3 does
not finds place in Ex.P9 i.e., the Challan/charge sheet as
an eyewitness and he had not given any statement before
the Police in respect of the alleged accident. Admittedly,
when the petitioners have filed the both petitions under
Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, the burden lies on them
to prove the negligence on the part of the driver of the
offending vehicle since the investigation report stands
against them. In that view of the matter, we are of the
considered view that the Tribunal after considering all the
documents and evidence, rightly dismissed the claim
petitions filed by the petitioners, which does not call for
any interference by this Court. Accordingly, we answer the
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3648-DB
point raised above in the negative and proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
Both the Miscellaneous First Appeals filed by the
appellants are dismissed being devoid of merits.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
HKV
CT;BN
