Dismissed

The Managing Director v. Sri. Raju @ Rajapa Shavantappa Kandappanavar

Karnataka HC10 Oct 2019MFA/21517/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a miscellaneous first appeal filed by a bus corporation challenging a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The Court upheld the Tribunal's finding of rash and negligent driving by the bus driver and affirmed the awarded compensation of Rs. 1,45,100 with interest.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and award dated 29.10.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is confirmed.

The Managing Director Vs Sri. Raju @ Rajapa… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.21517 OF 2010 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR NWKRTC HUBLI DIVISION GOKUL ROAD HUBLI

¶8

... APPELLANT

¶9

(By Sri. C.R. MENSINKAI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SRI. RAJU @ RAJAPA SHAVANTAPPA KANDAPPANAVAR AGE 29 YEARS, OCC:AGRIL CARPENTER AND BOREWELL REPAIR, NOW NIL R/O MADIDKOPPA, POST:TEGUR TQ & DIST:DHARWAD

¶12

... RESPONDENT

¶13

(By Sri. P G CHIKKANARAGUND, ADVOCATE)

¶14

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.10.2009 PASSED IN MVC NO.2464 OF 2006 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, BAILHONGAL, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1,45,100/- ALONG WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 9% P.A. TO THE PETITIONER TOWARDS COMPENSATION.

¶15

¶16

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

This appeal is filed by the Corporation challenging the judgment and award dated 29.10.2009 passed in MVC No.2464/2006 on the file of the MACT, Bailhongal, whereby the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.1,45,100/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a.

¶19

Brief facts of the case are that on 26.06.2006 at about 10.30 a.m., the claimant was traveling in a goods Auto Rickshaw bearing No. KA 24/C-3423. The driver of the bus bearing No. KA 25/F-2025 drove the same in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the goods auto rickshaw and thereby caused an accident and the claimant has suffered an injury. After recovering from the injury, the claimant has filed the claim petition in MVC No.2464/2006 in MACT at Belagavi.

¶20

To establish his case, claimant has examined himself as PW1 and Dr.B.F.Patil as PW-2 and marked 27

¶21

¶22

documents. On the other hand, the Corporation neither has examined any witness nor marked any documents. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.1,45,100/with 9% interest per annum. Being aggrieved by the same, the Corporation has filed this appeal.

¶23

appearing for the Corporation has submitted that the accident is occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Auto Rickshaw. Bus bearing No. KA 25/F-2025 was driven in left side after following of the traffic rules, without considering this aspect of the matter, the Tribunal has wrongly held that accident is occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. Secondly, he has contended that the Tribunal has granted excess compensation since the claimant has suffered only minor injuries. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.

¶24

**_Corrected vide Chamber’s Order dated 22.10.2019_*

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

¶27

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that immediately after the accident, a complaint has been registered against the driver of the offending vehicle and a case has been registered against the driver of the bus and charge sheet has been filed. They have not challenged the same. The accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus. He further contended that the Tribunal after verifying the documents produced by the petitioner i.e., wound certificate as Ex.P-8 and disability certificate as per Ex.P-10, has rightly awarded compensation of Rs.1,45,100/-. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶29

It is not in dispute that the claimant has

¶30

suffered injury due to the accident that occurred on 26.06.2006 due to collision of goods auto bearing

¶31

¶32

registration No.KA.24/C-3423 and NWKRTC bus bearing registration No.KA.25/F-2025. Immediately after the accident, the police had registered a case in Crime No.119 of 2006 against the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. bus bearing registration No. KA.25/F-2025. After investigation, the police have filed the charge sheet as per Ex.P-7 on the ground that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus bearing registration No. KA.25/F-2025. The Tribunal after examining the documents produced by the petitioner i.e. Ex.P-1-FIR, Ex.P-2-compliant, Ex.P-3-spot panchanama, Ex.P4-map and Ex.P-7 charge sheet, has rightly come to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus bearing registration No. KA.25/F-2025. Hence, I do not find any ground to interfere with the finding recorded by the Tribunal.

¶33

As regards the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, due to the accident, the claimant

¶34

¶35

has suffered injuries. He has produced wound certificate as Ex.P-8. It is very clear from Ex.P8 that the claimant has suffered contusion over right cheek, middle 3^rd of right arm and comminuted fracture shaft of right humerus and he has taken treatment for more than 44 days from 26.06.2006 to 08.08.2006. At the time of the accident, he was aged about 25 years. Taking into consideration all the material, the Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation of Rs.1,45,100/- with 9% interest per annum.

¶36

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment and award dated 29.10.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bailhongal, in MVC No.2464 of 2006 is confirmed.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

Hmb &

¶39

Kmv from para 5 till end

The Managing Director v. Sri. Raju @ Rajapa Shavantappa Kandappanavar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director v. Sri. Raju @ Rajapa Shavantappa Kandappanavar

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

The General Manager Ksrtc, Vs Veerendra S/O Fakirappa Totagi

Shri. Rajayogi Enterprises Vs the Mysore Minerals Limited

Shri. Appa Balu Bhui Vs Shri. Uttam Maruti Bhui

The State of Karnataka Vs Amaranath Sangayya Math

Hanamanth Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Bandenawaz Chanmdsaheb @ Chandsab Jamkhandi Vs Rahemansab Buransab Biradar