Karnataka High Court
Maruti Aspat And Energy Pvt Ltd vs B. Basha And Ors on 6 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8131
MFA No. 200929 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200929 OF 2019 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. MARUTI ASPAT AND ENERGY PVT LTD.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROP/MANAGER
SANJAY KUMAR OWNER OF TRACTOR
AND TRAILER NO. AP-29/TR-8206 & 8207
REG. NO. AP-21/AE-2308 AND
AP-10/W-3899, R/O SY. NO. 167
MADHAVARAM, MANDAL MANTRALAYAM
DIST: KURNOOL-518 001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. CHANDRAKALA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. B. BASHA
Digitally signed by S/O AKBARSAB
RENUKA AGE: 49 YEARS
Location: HIGH
COURT OF OCC: DRIVER OF TRACTOR AND TRAILER
KARNATAKA NO. AP-29/TR-8206 & 8207
REG. NO. AP-21/AE-2308 AND
AP-10/W-3899, R/O SAGAR VILLAGE
TQ: MANDAL MANTRALAYAM
DIST: KURNOOL-518 001.
2. D.S. KRISHNACHAITANYA REDDY
S/O VENUGOPAL REDDY
AGE: 30 YEARS
OCC: DRIVER OF CAR NO. AP-21/TV-1990
R/O HOUSE NO. 4/582
RAGHAVENDRA NAGAR
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8131
MFA No. 200929 of 2019
MANCHALI MANTRALAYAM
DIST: KURNOOL-518 001.
3. GUNJAPALLI RAGHAVENDRACHARI
S/O G. PRANESHACHARI
MAJOR
OCC: OWNER OF CAR NO. AP-21/TV-1990
R/O HOUSE NO. 4-18-2
RAGHAVENDRA NAGAR
MANCHALI MANTRALAYAM
DIST: KURNOOL-518 001.
4. THE MANAGER
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD
THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER
GUNJ ROAD, RAICHUR-584 101.
POLICY NO.61070231140100000349
VALID FROM 19-4-2014 TO 18-4-2015
AT ADONI BRANCH
5. HALUR PANCHAKSHARAYYA
S/O BUDDIVATHAIAH
AGE: 26 YEARS
OCC: DRIVER OF THE
TAX NO. KA-29/M-7768
R/O NO. 15, MALLAPUR VILLAGE
TQ & DIST: BAGALKOT-587 101.
6. DURGAPPA SIDDAPPA S/O BHARAMAPPA
AGE: MAJOR
OCC: OWNER OF TEMPO TRAX
NO. KA-29/M-7768
R/O NEAR BEERESHWARA TEMPLE
H.NO. 215, BEVINAKATTI
TQ: & DIST: BAGALKOT-587 101.
7. CHOLAMANDALAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
THROUGH ITS MANAGER
NO. 116/117, NIRMALA BUILDING
OPP: COSMO POLITEN CLIUB, DOUBLE ROAD
BELLARI-583 101
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8131
MFA No. 200929 of 2019
POLICY COVER NOTE NO. 3303482
VALID FROM 1-12-2014 TO 30-11-2015
8. SMT. M. ARUNA @ ARUNASHETTY
W/O LATE GURURAJ SHETTY
AGE: 49 YEARS
OCC: HOUSEHOLD
9. NEERAJA @ NEERAJA SHETTY
W/O UMESH SHETTY
AGE: 29 YEARS
OCC: HOUSEHOLD
10. M. ANUSHA @ MURARI ANUSHA
D/O M.M. ARUNA @ MURALI ARUNA
AGE: 25 YEARS
OCC: HOUSEHOLD
R8 TO R10 ARE R/O TIMMAPURPET
RAICHUR, DIST: RAICHUR-584 101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI. MANJUNATH MALLAYYA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R7;
SRI. BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADVOCATE FOR R8 TO R10;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O/D 26.03.2024;
R2, R3, R5 AND R6 ARE SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT,
PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.11.2018 PASSED BY THE II
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE (MACT), RAICHUR, IN MVC NO.
33/2016 AND FIXED THE LIABILITY ON THE RESPONDENT NO.
4 AND 7 HEREIN, INSURANCE COMPANIES, IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8131
MFA No. 200929 of 2019
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
The present appeal has been filed by the owner of
the tractor and trailer bearing Reg.Nos.AP-29/TR-8206
and AP-29/TR-8207, hereinafter referred to as the
"offending vehicle." The owner seeks to challenge the
Tribunal's decision to attribute 20% negligence to the
driver of the offending vehicle in connection with a fatal
accident involving the deceased, Gururaj Shetty. The
appellant contends that the Tribunal's assessment of
negligence on the part of the tractor driver is unwarranted
and requests a reassessment of liability.
2. The accident in question arose from a tragic
sequence of events that led to the untimely death of
Gururaj Shetty. At the time of the incident, Mr. Shetty
was traveling in a car bearing Reg.No.AP-21/TV-1990.
While proceeding on the roadway, the car driver failed to
observe that the tractor and trailer were illegally parked,
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8131
obstructing the road without appropriate precautions. The
car subsequently lost control, colliding with the stationary
tractor. Compounding the situation, a second collision
occurred almost immediately afterward involving a Tempo
Trax vehicle with Reg.No.KA-29/M-7768, further escalating
the severity of the incident. A claim petition was filed on
behalf of the deceased's family, seeking compensation for
the loss suffered.
3. Upon examination of the evidence, the Tribunal
determined that multiple parties shared responsibility for
the accident. The Tribunal apportioned negligence among
the three drivers involved in the incident as follows: 20%
fault was attributed to the driver of the offending tractor
and trailer, 40% to the driver of the car in which the
deceased was traveling, and the remaining 40% to the
driver of the Tempo Trax. Additionally, the Tribunal
awarded compensation to the claimants based on the
established liabilities.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8131
4. This Court, having conducted a thorough re-
evaluation of all material evidence presented, finds that
the Tribunal acted within reasonable discretion in
attributing negligence to the driver of the offending tractor
and trailer. The legal precedent on this issue, as
established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Archit Saini
and Another vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and
Others1, affirms that full responsibility can be imposed on
drivers who leave their vehicles parked in hazardous
positions on public roads. Such conduct constitutes a
serious breach of duty of care, as it endangers traffic flow
and the safety of other road users. Consequently, the
positioning of the tractor and trailer on the roadway
without adequate safety measures is sufficient grounds for
attributing contributory negligence to the driver.
5. Although the Tribunal assessed only 20% of the
fault to the driver of the offending tractor and trailer, a
lenient view considering the precedent that the insurance
AIR 2018 SC 1143
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8131
company has not challenged this apportionment of
negligence. In light of this, the Court finds no grounds to
reassess or reduce the level of negligence attributed to the
tractor driver.
6. The appeal, therefore, lacks merit and stands
dismissed.
7. The amount in deposit, if any, shall be forthwith
remitted to the Tribunal to enable the claimants to
withdraw the same.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
CA
