Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Controller vs Mugutsab Modinsab Allabai on 19 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5080
MFA No. 103100 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 103099 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103100 OF 2016 C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103099 OF 2016 (MV)
IN MFA NO. 103100 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
N.W.K.R.T.C. BELAGAVI.
- APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S. L. MATTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. SADASHIV @ SADU S/O. BASAPRABHU SANGOLLI,
AGE 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. DEVALAPUR,
TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI-589001.
2. SMT. SHANTAWWA W/O. SADASHIV @ SADU SANGOLLI,
AGE 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. DEVALAPUR, TQ. BAILHONGAL,
Digitally signed DIST. BELAGAVI-589001.
by VISHAL
NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL 3. SRI. BASAVARAJ RAMALINGAPPA MUDINAIKAR,
Location: High
Court of AGE MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. DAMBAL,
Karnataka, TQ. SINDAGI, DIST. VIJAYAPUR-587603.
Dharwad Bench
4. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
MERCHANTS BANK BUILDING,
S.R. CIRCLE, BAILHONGAL-589010.
- RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HANAMANT R. LATUR, ADV. FOR R1 & 2;
SRI. S. K. KAYAKAMATH, ADV. FOR R4;
NOTICE TO R3 SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF
M.V ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED
IN M.V.C NO.1132/2013, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5080
MFA No. 103100 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 103099 of 2016
AND ADDL. MACT BAILHONGAL, AT: BAILHONGAL, DATED
02.06.2016 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC.
IN MFA NO. 103099 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
NWKRTC, BELAGAVI.
- APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S. L. MATTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. MUGUTSAB MODINSAB ALLABAI,
AGE 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. DEVALAPUR, TQ. BAILHONGAL,
DIST. BELAGAVI-589001.
2. SMT. SAIRABANU W/O. MUTUTSAB ALLABAI,
AGE 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. DEVALAPUR, TQ. BAILHONGAL,
DIST. BELAGAVI-589001.
3. SRI. BASAVARAJ RAMALINGAPPA MUDINAIKAR,
AGE MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. DAMBAL, TQ. SINDAGI,
DIST. VIJAYAPUR-587603.
4. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., MERCHANTS BANK
BUILDING, S.R. CIRCLE, BAILHONGAL-589010.
- RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HANAMANT R. LATUR, ADV. FOR R1 & 2;
SRI. S. K. KAYAKAMATH, ADV. FOR R4;
NOTICE TO R3 SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF
M.V. ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
PASSED IN M.V.C NO.1133/2013, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT BAILHONGAL, AT: BAILHONGAL,
DATED 02.06.2016 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY &
ETC.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5080
MFA No. 103100 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 103099 of 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA)
Both these appeals arise out of common judgment
and award dated 02.06.2016 passed in M.V.C. No.
1132/2013 and 1133/2013 by the learned Senior Civil
Judge & AMACT, Bailhongal. Both the petitions were filed
by the parents of the deceased to claim compensation.
Both these appeals are filed challenging the impugned
judgment on the ground that the deceased rider of the
motorcycle had contributed for the accident in question
and therefore the Tribunal ought to have considered his
contribution for the accident in question. However, the
Tribunal fastened the entire liability on the owner of the
bus. Only on that ground the appeals are filed.
2. It is the case of the claimants that on 29.12.2012
sons of the claimants by name Shivanand Sangolli and
Muktuhusain Allabi were going on a motorcycle. The said
Shivanand Sangolli was riding and Muktuhusain Allabi was
the pillion. They met with an accident around 12.30 p.m.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5080
due to rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing No.
KA-42-F-1451 which was coming from the opposite
direction as a result of which both the rider and pillion
sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries
at the spot. It is the contention of the claimants that the
said Shivanand Sangolli was aged 18 years and similarly
Muktuhusain Allabi was also aged 18 years. With these
reasons prayed to award compensation.
3. The appellant/respondent No.1-owner of the bus
filed objections to the claim petition contending that the
accident had taken place due to rash and negligent riding
of the motorcycle by its rider. The driver was not at all
negligent in driving the bus. The rider of the motorcycle
had no valid and effective driving licence to ride the
motorcycle. Therefore, the claimants are not entitled for
claiming compensation against the respondent No.1. With
these reasons prayed to dismiss the claim petition against
respondent No.1.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5080
4. From the rival contentions of the parties the Tribunal
framed necessary issues. Both the cases were taken up
together for trial. The claimants examined two witnesses
as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked eight documents as per
Exs.P.1 to P.8. Respondent No.1 examined RW1 and got
marked one document as per Ex.R.1. The Tribunal after
hearing both the parties held that accident had taken place
due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver.
The Tribunal assessed compensation of Rs.8,56,000/- to
the claimants in each petition by the impugned common
judgment and award.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that
looking to the prosecution papers especially Ex.P.4A and
Mahazar, the accident had taken place on the middle of
the road. It was a head-on collusion. The said document
itself reveals that accident taken place due to negligence
of rider of the motorcycle. He further contends that rider
of the motorcycle was not having valid and effective
driving licence which shows that rider of the motorcycle
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5080
was not having knowledge of riding the motorcycle. The
Tribunal has not considered this fact and not apportioned
the contributory negligence of rider of the motorcycle.
Therefore prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the
impugned common judgment.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents-claimants
vehemently contended that not holding a driving licence is
not a ground to hold that rider of motorcycle was riding in
a rash and negligent manner. He relied on the judgment
of the Apex Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Vs.
National Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2018 [1] SCC
750 and Sudhir Kumar Rana Vs. Surinder Singh &
Ors. reported in 2008 Kar. MAC 541 [SC]. He has also
relied on the judgment in the case of Meera Devi & Ors.
Vs. HRTC & Ors. reported in 2014 [2] SCC 1. He
further submitted that complaint was given by the Police
Constable who is an eyewitness to the accident. He has
specifically mentioned that accident had taken place due
to negligence of the driver of the bus. Merely spot of
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5080
accident is the middle of the road, does not mean that
accident had taken place due to the negligence of the rider
of the motorcycle. Both the rider and the pillion are no
more. RW1 should have explained as to why the rider of
the motorcycle came towards the middle of the road. No
such explanation was given and RW1 contends that he
lodged complaint to the Police but the Police refused to
receive the complaint. He was not sent the said complaint
to the higher authorities of the concerned S.H.O. of the
Police Station. These facts reveal that evidence of RW1 is
not reliable. With these reasons prayed to dismiss the
appeals.
7. He further submits that claimants have not filed any
appeal for enhancement of the compensation and
considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Pranay Sethi Vs. National Insurance Co.
Ltd., the amount of compensation be enhanced.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5080
8. The only point that arises for consideration in this
case is "whether the accident had taken place due to
negligence of rider of the motorcycle?"
9. The Tribunal in the impugned judgment at
paragraph Nos.17 to 19 discussed in detail the facts of the
case and appreciated the oral and documentary evidence
and held that entire negligence was on the part of the
driver of the bus. As submitted by the learned counsel for
the appellant, Ex.P.4 shows that accident had taken place
near to the middle of the road. The rider of the
motorcycle was coming from the opposite direction. For
the sake of discussion, even if it is believed that rider of
motorcycle was coming at wrong side of the road or came
to the middle of the road, does not mean that the driver of
the bus shall go and hit it. What are the precautionary
measures RW1 had taken at the time of the accident is not
explained by him. Even if for the sake of discussion if it is
accepted that rider of the motorcycle was negligent, had
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5080
RW1 had taken proper care he could have avoided the
collusion of both the vehicles.
10. Looking to Ex.P.4 after the accident the bus went
ahead to the extreme left side of the road to an extent of
20 feet, which also indicates that driver of the bus was in
a high speed, therefore he could not control his vehicle. It
appears, in view of the said reason, the Police Constable
who had seen the accident has given complaint as per
Ex.P.1 mentioning that accident had taken place due to
negligence of driver of the bus. The Investigating Officer
appears to have recorded the statement of other witnesses
and out of them Conductor of the bus was also one of the
eyewitnesses. Considering the material on record, the
concerned Investigating Officer chargesheeted the driver
of the bus for causing the accident in question.
11. RW1 is the driver of the bus who is an accused
before the Criminal Court. Under such circumstances, it is
difficult to expect truth from him that he was not
responsible for the accident. In view of these
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5080
circumstances only on the basis of evidence of RW1 as
well as Ex.P.4 and P.4A, it cannot be held that accident
had taken place due to rash and negligent riding of the
motorcycle by its rider. The Tribunal has properly
considered the contentions of the parties and held that
accident had taken place due to negligence of driver of the
bus. This Court do not find any reason to interfere with
the said findings.
12. The learned counsel for the claimants contend that
the amount of compensation be enhanced even in the
absence of appeal filed by the claimants and no amount of
compensation is awarded towards future prospects.
Admittedly the claimants were not having fixed income/
salary, they were said to be earning from doing tailoring
as well as agricultural coolie work. Prior to the passing of
the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Pranay Sethi, the impugned judgment was delivered.
Therefore the Tribunal has not taken into account the
future prospects for enhancement of the compensation. To
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5080
reconsider the entire judgment in respect of the
compensation, there must be an appeal. As on the date of
passing of the impugned judgment, question of awarding
future prospects in respect of self employed persons was
not in practice. Considering these facts and circumstances
this Court is not inclined to accept the submission of the
learned counsel for the respondents-claimants.
13. For the aforesaid discussions the above said
question is answered in the negative and pass the
following order.
ORDER
The appeals are dismissed. The common judgment
and award dated 02.06.2016 passed in M.V.C. No.
1132/2013 and 1133/2013 by the learned Senior Civil
Judge & AMACT, Bailhongal, is confirmed.
The statutory amount deposited by the appellant
before this Court shall be transmitted to the Tribunal.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5080
Registry is directed to send back the trial court
records along with the copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
(UMESH M ADIGA)
JUDGE
BVV /CT-AN
