Allowed

The General Manager, v. Kamappa S/O. Fakkirappa Desalli

Karnataka HC29 Jan 2024MFA/20195/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Miscellaneous First Appeal challenging a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award was allowed. The single-judge bench set aside the 50% liability fastened on KSRTC, holding that the charge sheet filed only against the tempo trax driver who pleaded guilty established sole fault. Consequently, the Insurance Company was ordered to pay full compensation with interest. Amount in deposit was returned t

What did the court decide?

Liability of KSRTC for 50% compensation set aside. Oriental Insurance Co. ordered to pay entire compensation with interest. Deposit returned to KSRTC.

The General Manager, Vs Kamappa S/O. Fakkirappa Desalli — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:2020 MFA No. 20195 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.20195 OF 2012 (MV-I)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE GENERAL MANAGER, KSRTC, K.H. ROAD, SHANTINAGAR, BANGALURU.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SMT. VEENA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

KAMAPPA S/O. FAKKIRAPPA DESALLI, AGE ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: GOUNDI, R/O. HOSUR, TQ: SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶14

NAGARAJ S/O. SHANKARAPPA PILLI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. LAXMESHWAR, DIST: GADAG.

¶15

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., ENKAY COMPLEX, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

Digitally
signed by
SAMREEN
SAMREEN AYUB
AYUB DESHNUR
DESHNUR Date:
2024.02.05
12:45:56
+0530

¶18

(BY SRI. M.KUSUMAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR

¶19

SMT. RAJASHREE, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. G.N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE FOR R3; NOTICE TO R2 SERVED)

¶20

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD: 12-01-2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.1334/1995 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, HUBLI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.75,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL 08-03-2001 AND FROM 18-08-2010 TO TILL THE DATE OF REALISATION.

¶21

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

- 2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2020 MFA No. 20195 of 2012

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Heard Smt.Veena Hegde, learned counsel for the appellant – KSRTC and Sri.G.N.Raichur, learned counsel for Insurance Company.

¶25

KSRTC is in appeal challenging the validity of judgment and award passed in MVC No.1334/1995 on the file of Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hubballi, whereby the Tribunal allowed the claim of the claimant in a sum of Rs.75,000/- payable by KSRTC and Insurance Company of tempo trax bearing No.KA-24/1367 in the ratio of 50% each.

¶26

Smt.Veena Hegde, learned counsel for KSRTC reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, contended that the charge sheet came to be filed against the driver of opposite vehicle namely tempo trax bearing No.KA-24/1367 and driver of said tempo trax has pleaded guilty in the criminal proceedings. Said aspect of the matter even though taken note of by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment, taking note of the fact that incident

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2020 MFA No. 20195 of 2012

¶28

has occurred in the middle of the road, attributed contributory negligence on driver of KSRTC and driver of tempo trax and directed them to pay compensation in equal proportion which is incorrect and sought for allowing the appeal.

¶29

Per contra, Sri.G.N.Raichur, learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that PW.1 has categorically admitted that accident has occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of both drivers in the cross-examination conducted on behalf of owner of tempo trax. Therefore, the Tribunal is justified in fastening 50% liability on KSRTC and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶30

In view of the rival contentions of the parties,

¶31

this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶32

On such perusal of material on record, it is

¶33

crystal clear that police after thorough investigation in pursuance of the complaint lodged in respect of the

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2020 MFA No. 20195 of 2012

¶35

accident, have filed charge sheet only against the driver of

¶36

tempo trax bearing No.KA-24/1367.

¶37

It is pertinent to note that he has also pleaded guilty in the criminal case. That would clearly go to show

¶38

that it is the rash and negligent act of driver of tempo trax which has resulted in the accident.

¶39

Further, the said aspect of the matter even though noted by the Tribunal, fastened liability on KSRTC to the extent of 50% only on the ground that accident has occurred in the middle of the road and attributed contributory negligence at 50% each based on the answers elicited in the cross-examination of PW.1.

¶40

Such a course is not permissible for the Tribunal especially when charge sheet is filed only against the driver of tempo trax bearing No.KA-24/1367 and he has also pleaded guilty. Therefore, to that extent, the appeal should succeed.

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC-D:2020 MFA No. 20195 of 2012

¶43

In view of the foregoing discussion, following

¶44

order is passed:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

(i) Appeal is allowed.

¶47

(ii) Fastening of 50% liability on KSRTC to pay the compensation of Rs.75,000/- is hereby set aside.

¶48

(iii) Adjudged compensation with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation is payable by respondent No.3 - Oriental Insurance Company Limited, within six weeks from today.

¶49

(iv) It is made clear that the claimant is not entitled for interest from 09.03.2001 to 17.08.2010 as per the order in Writ Petition No.64790/2009.

¶50

(v) Amount in deposit is ordered to be returned to the KSRTC under due identification.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

SH, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47

The General Manager, v. Kamappa S/O. Fakkirappa Desalli

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The General Manager, v. Kamappa S/O. Fakkirappa Desalli

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

Kareppa S/O Yallappa Hasare Vs Basappa Appanna Banashankari

Smt. Vasanta W/O Pradeep S Vs Shri Pradeep S Alias Shadaksharapap Sondooru

Manikantha S/O Ningappa Wali Vs Hasanasab Appalall Mulla

Bhavani W/O. Shrikrishna Gouda Vs Shrikrishna Putte Gouda

Sri.Bhima @ Bhimappa Basappa Patil Vs the Divisional Mannager

Annapurna W/O. Mahalingappa Pattan Vs Nagaraj S/O. Channappa Hosatti