Allowed

Sri. Narasappa v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Karnataka HC13 Nov 2024MFA/5942/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimants appealed against a Tribunal's finding of 50% contributory negligence by the deceased. Holding that negligence before a MACT rests on preponderance of probabilities and that an unexamined driver's acquittal is irrelevant, the High Court set aside the contributory-negligence finding, held the auto rickshaw driver fully liable, but declined enhancement or interest for delay.

What did the court decide?

Finding of 50% contributory negligence against deceased set aside; auto rickshaw driver held solely responsible; insurer liable to pay compensation as awarded; no interest for delayed period.

Sri. Narasappa Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:46156 MFA No. 5942 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5942 OF 2018(MV-D)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. NARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS S/O. LATE NARASIMHAPPA

¶8

SMT. GANGAMMA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS W/O. NARASAPPA

¶9

SMT. NANJAMMA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS D/O. NARASAPPA

¶10

SRI. N. RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS S/O. NARASAPPA

¶11

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R

¶12

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI. N. PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS S/O. NARASAPPA

¶14

ALL ARE R/AT C/O. SHIVAKUMAR NO.112, 8^TH CROSS, 17^TH MAIN SWATHANTHRAYODHARANGAGARA NARASIMHASWAMY LAYOUT LAGGERE, BENGALURU-560 058

¶15

PERMANENT RESIDENTS OF HALE UPPARAHALLI HOSUR HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR CHICKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-561 208.

¶16

…APPELLANTS

¶17

(BY SRI NAGARAJA REDDY D., ADVOCATE)

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:46156 MFA No. 5942 of 2018

¶19

AND:

¶20

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. NO.144, SHUBHARAM COMPLEX M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001 REP. BY ITS MANAGER

¶21

SRI. SURESH BABU MAJOR S/O. DASAPPA KADARANAHALLI KURUDI POST GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK CHICKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-561 208.

¶22

SRI. K. R. SIDDARAJU MAJOR S/O. RAMAPPA DURUDI VILLAGE AND POST GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK CHICKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-561 208.

¶23

SRI. SIKHANDAR MAJOR S/O. NOORULLA R/O. HOSUR VILLAGE GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK CHICKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-561 208.

¶24

SRI. MUBARAK AHMED MAJOR S/O. NAYAZ AHMED R/O. 5^TH BLOCK, NAGAMANGALA MANDYA DISTRICT-571 432.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI A. N. KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; VIDE ORDER DATED 24.01.2024, NOTICE TO R-2 AND R5 IS HELD SUFFICIENT; VIDE ORDER DATED 14.12.2023, NOTICE TO R-3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT; R-4 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:46156 MFA No. 5942 of 2018

¶27

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.06.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.3891/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, MACT, [SCCH-16], PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶28

THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶31

The claimants are in appeal challenging the attribution of negligence to the extent of 50% on the deceased and also seeking enhancement.

¶32

The occurrence of the accident and the liability of the insurer to pay the compensation is not in dispute.

¶33

The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that driver of the Tata Ace which caused the accident and against whom a chargesheet had been laid was not completely negligent and as per the photograph at Ex.P-11, it could be ascertained that the deceased was trying to overtake the auto rickshaw and in the

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:46156 MFA No. 5942 of 2018

¶35

process, collided with the auto rickshaw, suffered injuries and succumbed to the same. In my view, this reasoning of the Tribunal cannot be accepted as only on the basis of the photograph, one cannot come to the conclusion as to the manner in which the accident had occurred.

¶36

In this case, admittedly, the driver of the Tata Ace vehicle, who was available, was not examined to even establish that there was some negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle and since the motorcycle rider was killed in the accident, obviously the evidence of the Tata Ace autorickshaw was crucial to determine negligence. Since the police have also investigated and found that he had caused the accident, the Tribunal ought to have inferred that the accident was as a result of the negligence on the part of the driver of the auto rickshaw. The Tribunal has committed an error in placing reliance on the

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:46156 MFA No. 5942 of 2018

¶38

acquittal of the driver of the auto rickshaw to also come to the conclusion that he was negligent.

¶39

In a criminal case, if the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused, that would not amount to recording a finding that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle under the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act. The negligence of a driver is estimated by the MACT on the principle of preponderance of probabilities and not on the proof beyond reasonable doubt.

¶40

As stated above, since the driver of the Tata Ace was not examined, the attribution of negligence on the deceased was wholly incorrect and consequently, that finding is set aside and it is held that the driver of the Tata Ace was alone responsible for the accident, as a consequence of which its insurer would be liable to pay the compensation.

¶41

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:46156 MFA No. 5942 of 2018

¶42

As far as compensation is concerned, it is noted that

¶43

the Tribunal has taken the income at Rs.10,000/and applied the multiplier of ‘16’, which cannot be found fault with and I am therefore of the view that the sums awarded by the Tribunal are just and proper and do not require any interference. Consequently, the appeal is allowed only to the extent of setting aside the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased had contributed to the extent of 50% and it is hereby held that the driver of the auto rickshaw was completely responsible for the accident.

¶44

However, the claimant would not be entitled to interest for the delayed period as per order dated 24.01.2024.

¶45

Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

¶46

HNM

¶47

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

Sri. Narasappa v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Narasappa v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.

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 Branch Manager Vs Smt. Parvathamma

Prabhakar Reddy Vs the Manager

Karnataka State Road Vs Chikkalingamma

The Branch Manager Vs a Ajay

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited Vs Ravi

Smt. Nagamma Vs Machamada a Sathish