Dismissed

The Managing Director North West Karnataka State R v. Vithalgouda @ Vithalreddy S/O Ninaganagouda Birada

Karnataka HC9 Jul 2013MFA/30268/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Miscellaneous First Appeal filed by the Road Transport Corporation against an award compensating an accident victim. The Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the bus driver was solely responsible despite the respondent's alleged intoxication, and rejected the claim that Rs.10,000 monthly income for compensation calculation was too low.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the amount in deposit shall be transferred to the Tribunal forthwith.

The Managing Director North West Karnataka State R… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶2

CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JULY 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.30268/2009 (MV)

¶7

Between:

¶8

The Managing Director, North West Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Central Offices, Hubli 580 030, By its Chief Law Officer. …. Appellant.

¶9

(By Sri Veeresh B. Patil, Adv.)

¶10

And:

¶11

Vithalgouda @ Vithalreddy, S/o Ninganagouda Biradar, Aged about 42 years, Occ; Contractor & Agriculture, R/o Nangaraji, Tq. & Dist. Bijapur. …. Respondent.

¶12

(By Sri Basavaraj R. Math, Adv.)

¶13

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and award

¶14

¶15

dated 17.9.2008 in MVC No.1061/2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal No.V, Bijapur, etc.

¶16

This Miscellaneous First Appeal coming on for Final Hearing this day, the Court delivered the following:

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The Managing Director of North West Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Hubli (for short ‘the Corporation’) has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and award in MVC No.1061/2001 dated 17.9.2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal No.V, Bijapur.

¶19

The respondent herein filed the claim petition in MVC No.1061/2001 before the Tribunal seeking compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 8.10.2001. The respondents have filed their objections denying the petition averments. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:

¶20

“(1) Whether the petitioner proves that the accident in question is the result of rash and negligent driving by

¶21

¶22

the driver of NWKSRTC bus bearing No.KA-31/F-541 and due to this impact he sustained injuries?

¶23

(2) Whether the respondent proves that the accident took place due to rash and negligent riding by the rider of Motor Cycle bearing No.MYJ-2216?

¶24

(3) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation?

¶25

(4) What order?”

¶26

The claimant was examined as P.W1 and documents Ex.P1

¶27

to Ex.P175 were marked in his evidence. He has also examined Dr.Milind Kulkarni, who has treated him as P.W2. The driver of the offending bus was examined as R.W1 and Ex.R1, certified copy of the judgment in C.C.No.363/2002 was marked in his evidence.

¶28

On appreciation of the materials on record, the Tribunal

¶29

has awarded compensation of Rs.10,70,889/- with interest at 8% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation.

¶30

¶31

The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant-

¶32

Corporation is that the driver of the offending bus belonging to the Corporation is not solely responsible for the accident. It is his submission that the respondent, who was riding the motor cycle, which had dashed against the bus has also contributed for the negligence resulting in the accident. Therefore, Tribunal ought to have apportioned the liability. Secondly, it is argued that the Tribunal was not justified in taking his income at Rs.10,000/- per month for the purpose of computation of loss of future earning capacity.

¶33

On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has sought to justify the impugned award. It is submitted that the Tribunal has assigned cogent reasons in order to come to a conclusion that the driver of the offending bus is alone responsible for the accident. It is further argued that the claimant was a contractor. He was also having certain agricultural income also. He has produced income tax returns in support of his contention that he was earning more than Rs.10,000/- per month.

¶34

¶35

I have carefully considered the arguments made by the learned Counsel at the Bar and perused the materials placed on record.

¶36

The driver of the offending bus was examined as R.W1. In his evidence, he has stated that at about 7.00 p.m. a motor cycle bearing No.MYJ.2216 came from opposite direction. The motor bike was coming in a zig zag manner and dashed against the bus on the right side. After the accident, the rider and the pillion rider fell down and sustained injuries. He has further stated that the rider and the pillion rider were in a drunken condition. However, this has not been stated in the written statement of the Corporation. In order to establish this fact, the Corporation has not produced any medical certificate. It is an admitted fact that Police have registered a case against the driver of the bus. He was arrested by the Police and was released on bail. Charge sheet was also filed against him. It is not the case of the driver of the bus that he has lodged a complaint against the petitioner on the ground that the claimant had caused the

¶37

¶38

accident. The claimant was acquitted in a criminal case on the ground that prosecution has not established the guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. Taking into consideration all these aspects, the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the driver of the offending bus alone is responsible for the accident. I do not find any error in the said finding.

¶39

9. That brings me to the next question as to whether the

¶40

Tribunal is right in holding that the income of the claimant was Rs.10,000/- at the time of the accident?. As noticed above, the accident had occurred on 8.10.2001. He has produced the income tax returns right from the year 1994-1995 till 2002-2003. For the year 1999-2000, his declared income was Rs.1,83,642/-, for the year 2000-2001, it was Rs.2,06,600/-, for the year 2001-2002, it is Rs.2,50,000/- and for the year 2002-2003, it was Rs.5,50,000/-. If we take the income of the year 2001-2002, it is Rs.2,50,000/-. In other words, the monthly income is more than Rs.20,000/-. Therefore, the Tribunal has taken his income at Rs.10,000/-, which cannot be treated as exorbitant. There is no merit in this appeal. It is

¶41

¶42

accordingly dismissed. The amount in deposit shall be transferred to

¶43

the Tribunal forthwith. No costs.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

JUDGE.

¶46

BMM/-

The Managing Director North West Karnataka State R v. Vithalgouda @ Vithalreddy S/O Ninaganagouda Birada

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director North West Karnataka State R v. Vithalgouda @ Vithalreddy S/O Ninaganagouda Birada

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivappa S/O Chanaram Uppar Vs Suresh S/O Vithal Gornal Ors.

Shankrappa S/O Yamanappa Bhavimani Vs the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Anr.

Laxmana S/O Bhimanna and Anr. Vs National Insurance Co.Ltd. through Branch Office

Roopchand @ Roop Singh S/O Wachu Rathod Vs Rajendra Ballure S/O Sangashetty Ors.

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Ayyalappa S/O Yamunappa

The Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kheemu S/O Shankar Chawan