Allowed

Sri.K.T Sharanappa v. Harikrishna Akruthi

Karnataka HC23 Sept 2022RP/553/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This review petition challenges the Industrial Disputes Tribunal order fixing 30% contributory negligence against the claimant in a motor accident compensation case. Finding no evidence for the negligence finding, the High Court allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The contributory negligence of 30% held by the Tribunal was set aside. Claimant shall be entitled for full compensation of Rs.19,57,620/-.

Sri.K.T Sharanappa Vs Harikrishna Akruthi — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

RP No. 553 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA REVIEW PETITION NO. 553 OF 2022

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. K.T. SHARANAPPA S/O K.T. THIMMAPPA @ THIMMANNA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS AGRICULTURISTS R/O CHIKKAGONDANAHALLI CHITRADURGA TALUK & DISTRICT. PIN - 577 502

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI: N.K. SIDDESWARA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by NANDINI B G Location: High Court Of Karnataka

¶14

HARIKRISHNA AKRUTHI S/O RANGAIAH AKRUTHI AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RC OWNER OF CAR NO KA-19/MC-0773 R/O SAITEJA BUILDING 1^ST MAIN, 2^ND CROSS SAMPIGE NAGARA DHARWAD CITY - 580 001.

¶15

ANNAPPA MANEL NAYAK S/O M.A. KRISHNANAYAKA POLICY HOLDER OF CAR NO. KA-19/MC-0773 MANGALA COMPLEX SOUTH CANARA MANGALORE - 575 003.

¶16

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MMK COMPLEX, PJ EXTENSION

¶17

¶18

RP No. 553 of 2022

¶19

DAVANAGERE - 577 002.

¶20

REPT. BY IS DIVISIONAL MANAGER

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI: SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R3

¶23

NOTICE TO R1, R2 DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD. 23.09.2022.)

¶24

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 04/04/2022 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN MFA NO.4167/2021 SO FAR IT RELATES TO SETTING ASIDE THE CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE OF 30% FIXED AGAINST THE PETITIONER BY THE TRIAL COURT AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶25

THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Shri N K Siddeswara, learned advocate for the petitioner

¶28

submitted that this Court has enhanced the compensation by a sum of Rs.5,73,000/-. He submitted that there was no negligence on the part of the claimant. The Tribunal has come to an erroneous conclusion that claimant was negligent to the extent of 30% only on surmises. No material was placed before the Tribunal by the respondent nor any evidence let in on this aspect.

¶29

His submission is not opposed by the learned advocate for insurer.

¶30

¶31

RP No. 553 of 2022

¶32

We have carefully perused para 11 of the award.

¶33

Learned Tribunal has held that if the claimant were diligent, accident could have been avoided and accordingly fixed the negligence at 30% on the part of the claimant. There is no corresponding pleading nor any evidence to support this finding. In the circumstances, the argument of Shri Siddeswara, merits consideration.

¶34

Hence, the following:

¶35

ORDER

¶36

The Review Petition is allowed.

¶37

The contributory negligence of 30% as held by the

¶38

Tribunal is set aside. Claimant shall be entitled for full compensation of Rs.19,57,620/-.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

*bgn/-

Sri.K.T Sharanappa v. Harikrishna Akruthi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.K.T Sharanappa v. Harikrishna Akruthi

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

M/S Juwi India Renewable Energies Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Union of India

The Commissioner of Vs M/S Abb India Ltd.

Abb India Ltd. Vs Joint Commissioner of

Rathnakara Moolya Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Mr Vaseefulla Vs Aftab Ahmed

India Awake for Transparency Vs Mr Azim Hasham Premji