Partly allowed

Sri. Chandrappa v. the Managing Director

Karnataka HC14 Nov 2022MFA/3430/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner appealed against the dismissal of a compensation claim for bullock injuries and damages caused by an APSRTC bus. The High Court accepted that the accident occurred but found the Tribunal erred in rejecting the claim entirely. The Court awarded Rs.30,000/- based on admitted sale proceeds.

What did the court decide?

The impugned award is set aside. Compensation of Rs.30,000/- with interest at 6% per annum is awarded. Response directed to pay within six weeks.

Sri. Chandrappa Vs the Managing Director — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶5

M.F.A.NO.3430/2015 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. CHANDRAPPA S/O. LATE NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT SANTHEKALLAHALLI VILLAGE, KAIWARA HOBLI, CHINTHAMANI TALUK, CHICKABALLPUR DISTRICT-563 125. …APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SMT. SUGUNA R. REDDY, ADVOCATE [THROUGH VC])

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR (VC AND MD), APSRTC, MUSHEENABAD, HYDERABAD CITY, ANDHRA PRADESH-571 001. ... RESPONDENT

¶11

(BY SRI D.VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE [THROUGH VC])

¶12

THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.12.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.21/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT, KOLAR, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

¶13

THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

J U D G M E N T

¶16

Though this matter is listed for admission today, with the consent of both the learned counsel it is taken up for final disposal.

¶17

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent .

¶18

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 23.12.2014 passed in M.V.C.No.21/2013 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kolar (‘the Tribunal’ for short).

¶19

The factual matrix of the case of the claimant before the Tribunal is that on 18.06.2010, he got loaded stone slabs in the bullock cart at Santhekallahalli quarry and transporting the same to Attiganahalli Village and when the bullock cart reached near H. Cross, in between Beechagondanahalli gate and Kalikamba Devalapura gate of Kolar Taluk on CuddapahaBengaluru Highway at about 11.30 a.m., a APSRTC bus came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bullock cart

¶20

¶21

from its behind. As a result, multiple grievous and fatal injuries are caused to both bullocks and the bullock cart was also damaged and the stone slabs worth of Rs.15,000/- became pieces and useless. Hence, case has been registered against the driver of the APSRTC and the police have investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet.

¶22

The claimant filed the claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation for the damages to the bullock cart as well as the injuries caused to the bullocks. In support of the claim, the claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and the Veterinary Doctor as P.W.2 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P10. On the other hand, the respondent examined one witness as R.W.1 and not marked any documentary evidence. The Tribunal, after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, dismissed the claim petition. Hence, the present appeal is filed by the claimant.

¶23

The main contention of the appellant before this Court is that the Tribunal committed an error in dismissing the claim petition, even though there is no dispute with regard to the

¶24

¶25

occurrence of the accident. The counsel would further contend that, Ex.P3-spot mahazar clearly goes to show that the stone slabs loaded in the bullock cart became pieces and useless and inspite of all these factors found in terms of Ex.P3, the Tribunal committed an error in dismissing the claim petition. It is also contended that, Exs.P5 and P8 to P10 supports the case of the claimant and the Doctor, who has been examined also deposed with regard to the value of the bullocks and inspite of the same, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.

¶26

The learned counsel for the appellant in her oral submission also reiterates and contends that P.W.1 deposed with

¶27

regard to the nature of injuries caused to the bullocks as well as the fact that he has sold the bullocks to Rs.800/- and the worth of both the bullocks was Rs.80,000/-. The counsel also would submit that the Doctor, who treated the bullocks also deposed with regard to the value of the bullocks. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.

¶28

¶29

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-

¶30

APSRTC would vehemently contend that though the accident is not in dispute, with regard to the nature of injuries caused to the bullocks, no material is placed before the Court and instead made the claim that bullocks died and no material is placed before the Court to prove the fact that the bullocks died. It is also contended that the Tribunal has also assigned reasons while considering the claim petition filed by the claimant and observed that, if really two bullocks have died at the accident spot, definitely, the Investigating Officer would have reported the same and no post mortem report is also produced. Hence, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim petition and it does not require any interference of this Court.

¶31

Having considered the submissions of respective

¶32

counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, particularly the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the Doctor, who has treated the bullocks has stated with regard to the injuries caused to the bullocks and in order to prove the accident, the documents at Exs.P1 to P3 are produced and Ex.P3-spot

¶33

¶34

mahazar discloses the occurrence of accident, injuries caused to the bullocks as well as the damages caused to the bullock cart. The documents at Exs.P4 and P5 are the wound certificates issued by P.W.2 and Ex.P6 is the IMV report and the police have investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet as per Ex.P7 and marked the case register extracts as Exs.P8 to P10.

¶35

Having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, there is no dispute with regard to the occurrence of the accident and the injuries caused to the bullocks. In order to prove the fact that the claimant had sold the bullocks to Rs.800/-, no document is produced before the Court. Having considered the said fact into consideration, the P.W.1 in his Chief evidence says that he sold the injured bullocks to an amount of Rs.10,000/- and no document is produced to substantiate the fact that the bullocks died in the accident except the wound certificates. Further, in order to prove the factum that bullock cart was also damaged and repaired, no document is placed before the Court. When the accident is not in dispute and the evidence of the Doctor is also very clear that

¶36

¶37

he treated the injured bullocks and issued wound certificates as per Exs.P4 and P5 and having considered the evidence of P.W.1 that he had sold the bullocks for Rs.800/- and also considering the fact that though in the cross-examination, he claims that he had sold the bullocks for Rs.800/-, in the examination in chief, in Para No.4, he has stated that both the bullocks sustained multiple grievous and fatal injuries which became useless for agricultural or cart purpose and inspite of spending around an amount of Rs.10,000/-, they could not recover and as such, subsequently, he sold the bullocks for Rs.10,000/- to butchers.

¶38

Hence, it is very clear that there is an admission on the part of the claimant with regard to sale of bullocks for Rs.10,000/and having considered the said fact into consideration, though it is the claim of the claimant that the bullocks are worth of Rs.40,000/- each and spent Rs.40,000/for repair of the damages caused to the bullock cart and Rs.15,000/- worth of stone slabs because pieces and useless, no material is placed before the Court to substantiate the said fact. When such being the material available on record, it is appropriate to award an amount of Rs.15,000/- each in respect

¶39

¶40

of both the bullocks. Hence, in all, an amount of Rs.30,000/- is awarded with interest at 6% per annum in the absence of any repair bills for having repaired the bullock cart.

¶41

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶42

following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶45

(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 23.12.2014, passed in M.V.C.No.21/2013 is set aside granting compensation of Rs.30,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit.

¶46

(iii) The respondent-APSRTC is directed to pay the compensation amount with interest within six weeks from today.

¶47

(iv) The Registry is directed to transmit the records to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

Sri. Chandrappa v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Chandrappa v. the Managing Director

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 Reliance General Ins. Co.Ltd, Vs Raju

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Shri N Ramachandra

The Regional Manager Vs Master Tharun C Gowda

Sri Ramesh G Vs Sri Rajanna

Chikkanna @ Chikkegowda Vs Venkategowda B R

Sri Lakshmi Sagar Vs Sri Ninge Gowda a B