Dismissed

Sri.N.C.Abdul Rehiman v. Smt.Poornima

Karnataka HC3 Oct 2023MFA/1652/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal decision imposing 50% contributory negligence on the petitioner and the subsequent appeals challenging the compensation award and rationale were dismissed. The court found no error in attributing equal responsibility for the collision.

What did the court decide?

Both appeals were dismissed. The amount in deposit shall be transferred to the Tribunal.

Sri.N.C.Abdul Rehiman Vs Smt.Poornima — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:35951 MFA No. 1652 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 4808 of 2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1652 OF 2022 (MV-I)

¶8

C/W

¶9

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4808 OF 2021 (MV-I)

¶10

IN MFA NO.1652 OF 2022:

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

SRI N.C. ABDUL REHIMAN (IN JUDGEMENT IT IS TYPED AS

¶13

N.C. ADUL REHIMAN) AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O. N.C. AHMED R/AT "JANATHA COLONY" KIRIMANJESHWARA POST KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT-576 219.

¶14

Digitally signed by H K HEMA

¶15

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

(BY SRI H. MALATESH, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

SMT. POORNIMA W/O. SANJEEVA M. ANCHAN AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT "DEVI KRIPA" CHAND POOJARI COMPOUND N.H.66, AMBALAPADY UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT-576 103.

¶19

…APPELLANT

¶20

SANJEEVA M. ANCHAN S/O. MUTHA ANCHAN

¶21

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:35951 MFA No. 1652 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 4808 of 2021

¶22

AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT "DEVI KRIPA" CHAND POOJARI COMPOUND N.H.66, AMBALAPADY UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT-576 103.

¶23

THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. REP. BY DIVISIONAL MANAGER VIDYA POORNA BUILDING NEAR HEAD POST OFFICE UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT-576 101.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI L. SREEKANTA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R.3; R.1 & R.2: SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED.)

¶26

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V.ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.05.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.848 OF 2016 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL MACT AND II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, UDUPI, AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC.

¶27

IN MFA NO.4808 OF 2021:

¶28

BETWEEN:

¶29

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. REP. BY IT'S DIVISIONAL MANAGER VIDYA POORNA BUILDING NEAR HEAD POST OFFICE UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT NOW REP. BY G. SHIVA KUMAR ASSISTANT MANAGER REGIONAL OFFICE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. SUBHARAM COMPLEX, M.G. ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.

¶30

…APPELLANT

¶31

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:35951 MFA No. 1652 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 4808 of 2021

¶32

(BY SRI L. SREEKANTA RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶33

AND:

¶34

N.C. ABDUL REHIMAN AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O. N.C. AHMED RESIDING AT 'JANATHA COLONY' KIRIMANJESWARA POST KUNDAPURA TALUK

¶35

UDUPI DISTRICT-576 219.

¶36

POORNIMA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS W/O. SANJEEVA M. ANCHAN

¶37

SANJEEVA M. ANCHAN AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS S/O. MUTHA ANCHAN

¶38

BOTH RESIDING AT 'DEVI KRIPA' CHAND POOJARY COMPOUND N.H.66, AMBALPADY UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576 103.

¶39

…RESPONDENTS

¶40

(BY SRI H. MALATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R.1; R.2 & R.3: SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED.)

¶41

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V.ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN MVC NO.848/2016 DATED 26.05.2020 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL & II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, UDUPI AND ALLOW THE APPEAL WITH COSTS AND ETC.

¶42

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶43

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:35951 MFA No. 1652 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 4808 of 2021

¶44

JUDGMENT

¶45

Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 26.05.2020 passed in MVC No.848/2016 by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Udupi (for short ‘the Tribunal’), the petitioner therein has preferred MFA No.1652/2022 and respondent no.3 therein has preferred MFA No.4808/2021.

¶46

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein as per their status before the Tribunal.

¶47

Brief facts of the case are as follows:

¶48

On 19.03.2013, at about 11.50 a.m., while the petitioner was traveling on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-20-EA-6548, he met with an accident near Shamil Marriage Hall, Ambalpady, Udupi, with a Kinetic Honda bearing registration No.KA-20-J-503, which was duly insured with respondent no.3/Insurance Company. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.2,23,562/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization on Rs.1,33,562/(excluding 50% of the future medical

¶49

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:35951 MFA No. 1652 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 4808 of 2021

¶50

expenses) payable by respondent no.3. Not satisfied by the same, the petitioner therein has preferred MFA No.1652/2022 and respondent no.3 therein has preferred MFA No.4808/2021.

¶51

Based on the injuries suffered by the petitioner, the Tribunal has assessed the compensation at Rs.4,47,125/-, but on the facts has concluded that the petitioner has contributed 50% for causing of the accident, and hence, it has awarded the compensation of Rs.2,23,562/-. Both the petitioner and respondent no.3/Insurance company do not challenge seriously, the assessment of the damages made by the Tribunal. However, both have challenged the decision of the Tribunal regarding contributory negligence on part of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the Tribunal erred in holding that the petitioner has contributed 50% for causing of the accident and that the accident happened solely due to rash and negligent driving of Kinetic Honda which was duly insured with respondent no.3. Per contra, respondent no.3/Insurance Company contend that there was 100%

¶52

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:35951 MFA No. 1652 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 4808 of 2021

¶53

negligence on part of the petitioner and the rider of the Kinetic Honda was not responsible for causing the accident.

¶54

Thus, the only question that arises for consideration in both the appeals is, who was responsible for causing the accident.

¶55

The learned counsel for the Insurance Company has relied upon the cross examination of PW.1, wherein he admits that there was a distance of around 10 feet between his motorcycle and the Kinetic Honda, when without any indication the Kinetic Honda turned towards right because of which he dashed against the same. Reliance is also placed upon the charge sheet filed in the criminal case, wherein the petitioner has been arrayed as the accused and no action has been initiated against the rider of Kinetic Honda.

¶56

On the contrary, the petitioner contend that he has been acquitted in the criminal case and the evidence on hand before the Tribunal shows that the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of the Kinetic Honda and the

¶57

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:35951 MFA No. 1652 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 4808 of 2021

¶58

Tribunal erred in holding the petitioner responsible to an extent of 50% for causing of the accident.

¶59

The Tribunal has to take a decision based upon the evidence adduced before it. In the instant case, though charge sheet filed in the criminal case, which was against the petitioner as well as 'B' report filed against the rider of Kinetic Honda in a private complaint filed by the petitioner were produced, the fact that the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case is not disputed in the course of the arguments. Further, the Insurance Company has failed to examine the rider of the kinetic Honda or any other eye witness. The deposition of PW.1, shows that Kinetic Honda was proceeding ahead of him and it suddenly took a right turn without any indication and there was a distance of about 10 feet between the petitioner's bike and the Kinetic Honda at that time and as the petitioner was negligent, he did not apply the brake or move towards the left and he dashed against the Kinetic Honda. For that reason, the Tribunal has considered that both the rider of Kinetic Honda and the petitioner have contributed equally for causing of the

¶60

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:35951 MFA No. 1652 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 4808 of 2021

¶61

accident. I do not see any error in the order passed by the Tribunal.

¶62

For the aforementioned reasons, both the appeals are hereby dismissed. The amount in deposit shall be transferred to the Tribunal.

¶63

Registry is directed to return the records to the jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith.

¶64

Sd/JUDGE

¶65

hkh.

Sri.N.C.Abdul Rehiman v. Smt.Poornima

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.N.C.Abdul Rehiman v. Smt.Poornima

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Sateesh Krishnarao Ganjihal Vs the Official Liquidator of

V R Siddeshwara Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Pushpavathi Vs Mohamed Meraj Hasan

Modur Milk Producers Co. Operative Society Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Raghuveer v Hubballi Vs Genral Insurance Employees

Smt S Manjula Vs the Karnataka State Cooperative Society