Appeal by unsuccessful claimant against dismissal of his claim for compensation for death of his she buffalo hit by a vehicle on a national highway. The court held that allowing cattle on the highway violated statutory prohibitions and found no perversity in the Tribunal's reasoning; appeal dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3388 MFA No. 100166 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100166 OF 2014 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. PUNDALIK KRISHNA MASEKAR, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HALKARNI, TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANJAY S.KATAGERI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
BHARATHI H M
Digitally signed by BHARATHI H M Date: 2024.02.21 11:59:34 +0530
(BY SRI. G.N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 SERVED)
…RESPONDENTS
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, AGAINST JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:01.10.2013, PASSED IN MVC.NO.823/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT AND SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KHANAPUR, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED U/SECT.166 OF MV ACT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3388 MFA No. 100166 of 2014
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.Sanjay S. Katageri, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.G.N.Raichur, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:
A claim petition came to be filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act contending that on 17.07.2012 at about 4.30 p.m. on Khanapur - Belagavi road (NH.4A) near the house of one Sri.Kocheri, driver of the Tata Ace Magic, bearing No.KA.22/P.5970 drove the same in rash and negligent manner and dashed against a she buffalo belonging to the claimant and 17 days later, the she buffalo died on account of accidental injuries and sought for appropriate compensation.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3388 MFA No. 100166 of 2014
written statement by the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle.
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to for compensation? If so, what amount and from whom?
3. What order?”
claimant got examined himself as P.W.1 and placed on record, nine documentary evidence on record which are
marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9 comprising of certified copy of FIR and complaint, English translation of the complaint,
certified copy of spot mahajar, certified copy of the map,
MVI report, wound certificate, P.M. report and certified
copy of the charge sheet.
evidence is placed on record.
and taking note of the fact that the material evidence placed on record, recorded a categorical finding that there was a rash and negligent driving on the part if the driver
of Tata Ace Magic vehicle, but relying on the provision of Section 8B of National Highway Act, 1956 and Section 37 of the Control of National Highway (Land and Traffic Act, 2002), dismissed the claim petition.
back to the house after gracing it in the area, accident has occurred. Therefore, it cannot be construed that the accident is on account of stray cattle on National Highway attracting the provisions of Section 8B of National Highway Act, 1956 or for that matter Section 37 of Control of National Highway (Land and Traffic Act, 2002) and Tribunal has not bestowed its attention by dismissing the claim petition and sought for allowing the appeal.
road and not side of the road as is claimed in the complaint.
away, whereby the vehicle has dashed against it.
bestowed by the Tribunal in paragraph Nos.13 to 15 in the impugned judgment itself. The same are culled out here under for ready reference:
“13. Section 8b of National Highway Act, 1956 states:
8b Punishment for mischief by injury to National highway – Whoever commits mischief by doing any act which renders, or which he knows to be likely to render any national highway rendered to in sub section (1) of Section 8A impassable or loss safe traveling or conveying property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either of either description for a
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3388 MFA No. 100166 of 2014
term which may extent to five years, or with a fine, or with both.
14. Section 3(K) of Control of National highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 states:
“Prescribed” means prescribed by rules made under this Act.
15. Section 37 of Control of National highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 states:
37 Prohibition to leave vehicles, or animals, in dangerous position – (1) No person in charge of, or in possession of, any vehicle or animal shall allow such vehicle, or animal, to stand or proceed on a Highway, unless the same is under such safety control as may be prescribed.”
the road at the time of accident. As per the above provision, no person can allow a stray cattle to move on or stay on the National Highway. In the National Highway, the vehicles are expected to move with a reasonable speed. Suddenly, if a cattle was to cross the National Highway, it results in abruption of the traffic.
National Highway, where the drivers are expected to move with reasonable speed.
judgment about the said factual aspect of the matter and rightly dismissed the claim petition.
25. Accordingly, following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is meritless and hereby dismissed .
(ii) No order as to costs.
Sd/JUDGE
KAV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 25
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim for compensation for the death of the claimant's she buffalo on a national highway.
Whether Section 8B of the National Highway Act and Section 37 of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act bar compensation where cattle stray onto a highway.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Sri. Pundalik Krishna Masekar
Shri. Kempanna Ningappa Sankeshwar
The Divisional Manager, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.
V. Srishananda
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
