Disposed

Smt Bhagya v. Haji Irfan

Karnataka HC12 Sept 2024MFA/8448/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two claimants injured as motorcycle pillion riders in a collision with a car sought enhancement of Tribunal awards. The court held the rider's carriage of pillion passengers did not amount to contributory negligence and enhanced compensation to Rs.75,000/- and Rs.25,000/- respectively.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.75,000/- (MVC 398/2017) and Rs.25,000/- (MVC 396/2017), with interest, deposited by Insurance Company within six weeks.

Smt Bhagya Vs Haji Irfan — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:37404 MFA No. 8448 of 2018 C/W MFA No.8450 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8448 OF 2018 (MV)

¶6

C/W

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8450 OF 2018 (MV) IN MFA 8448/2018

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT BHAGYA W/O RAVIKUMAR AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/AT MUKUNDURU VILLAGE KATTAYA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK PRESENTLY R/AT ATTIHALLI VILLAGE NUGGEHALLI HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN TALUK.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. SHRIPAD V SHASTRI .,ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AND:

¶14

HAJI IRFAN S/O BADRUDDIN MAJOR R/AT UDAY NAGAR GULWADI UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶15

MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., SAI CENTRE MAIN ROAD KUNDAPURA VILLAGE UDUPI TOWN AND DISTRICT

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI.L SREEKANTA RAO., ADVOCATE FOR R2: NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:37404 MFA No. 8448 of 2018 C/W MFA No.8450 of 2018

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 22/03/2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.398/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE 4TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN DISTRICT (SIT AT CHANNARAYAPATNA), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

IN MFA 8450/2018

¶21

BETWEEN:

¶22

DUSHANTH S/O. RAGHU AGED ABOUT 3 YEARS SINCE MINOR REPT. BY HIS NEXT FRIEND MOTHER SWETHA W/O. RAGHU AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT HIRISAVE VILLAGE AND HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN TALUK-573201.

¶23

…APPELLANT

¶24

(BY SRI. SHRIPAD V SHASTRI., ADVOCATE)

¶25

AND:

¶26

HAJI IRFAN S/O. BADRUDDIN MAJOR R/AT UDAY NAGAR GULWADI UDUPI DISTRICT-576101.

¶27

2. MANAGER

¶28

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., SAI CENTRE MAIN ROAD KUNDAPURA VILLAGE UDUPI TOWN AND DISTRICT.

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:37404 MFA No. 8448 of 2018 C/W MFA No.8450 of 2018

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SRI.L SREEKANTA RAO., ADVOCATE FOR R2: NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 27.08.2024)

¶32

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:22.03.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.396/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE 4TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN DISTRICT (SIT AT CHANNARAYAPATNA), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶33

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶34

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶35

These appeals under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) have been filed by the claimants challenging by the judgment dated 22.03.2018 passed by MACT, Hassan (Sitting at Channarayapatna) in MVC Nos.398/2017 and 396/2017.

¶36

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeals briefly stated are that on 09.06.2024 at about 02.30 p.m., the claimants were traveling as a pillion riders in a motor cycle bearing Registration No.KA-13-Q-3585 ridden by one Ravi Kumar on B.M.Road, near Hombale Gate, while travelling,

¶37

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:37404 MFA No. 8448 of 2018 C/W MFA No.8450 of 2018

¶38

the driver of the Car bearing Registration No.KA-20-N6623 owned by respondent No.1 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle of the claimants. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimants sustained grievous injuries and were hospitalized.

¶39

The claimants filed petitions under Section 166 of the Act, seeking compensation. It was pleaded that they spent significant amount towards medical expenses, conveyance charges and other related costs. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶40

Upon service of notice, the respondent No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. The respondent No.1, despite service of notice, did not appear before the Tribunal and was placed ex-parte.

¶41

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:37404 MFA No. 8448 of 2018 C/W MFA No.8450 of 2018

¶42

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter, recorded the evidence. The Tribunal, by impugned judgment and award has partly allowed the claim petitions and held that the claimant in MVC No.398/2017 is entitled to a compensation of Rs.50,000/- and the claimant in MVC No.396/2017 is entitled to a compensation of Rs.10,000/along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, the present appeals have been filed.

¶43

The learned counsel for the claimant has raised the following contentions:

¶44

a) Firstly, the claimants were pillion riders on a motorcycle involved in an accident caused by the negligence of the car driver. However, the Tribunal erred in holding the rider of the motorcycle was contributed 50% to the accident solely based on the fact that he was carrying three pillion riders.

¶45

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:37404 MFA No. 8448 of 2018 C/W MFA No.8450 of 2018

¶46

b) Secondly, due to the accident, the claimants have sustained grievous injuries. They have suffered lot of pain during treatment. Considering the same, the global compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side.

¶47

With the above contentions, the learned counsel sought to allow the appeals.

¶48

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised the following countercontentions:

¶49

a) Firstly, at the time of the accident, the motorcycle rider

¶50

was carrying three pillion riders. Due to impact, he lost control over the vehicle and collided with the car. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly held that the motorcycle rider was also 50% responsible for the accident.

¶51

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:37404 MFA No. 8448 of 2018 C/W MFA No.8450 of 2018

¶52

b) Secondly, considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and considering the age and avocation of the claimants, the global compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and it does not warrant interference.

¶53

With the above contentions, the learned counsel sought to dismiss the appeals.

¶54

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

¶55

REG:NEGLIGENCE

¶56

The case of the claimants is that on 09.06.2024 at about 02.30 p.m., the claimants were travelling as a pillion riders in a motor cycle bearing Registration No.KA-13-Q3585 ridden by one Ravi Kumar on B.M.Road, near Hombale Gate, while travelling, the driver of the Car bearing Registration No.KA-20-N-6623 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle of the claimants. Due to impact, the claimants sustained grievous injuries and were hospitalized. The

¶57

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:37404 MFA No. 8448 of 2018 C/W MFA No.8450 of 2018

¶58

Tribunal after considering the evidence of the parties and material available on record, has rightly held that the

¶59

driver of the Car was negligent in causing the accident.

¶60

The Apex Court in the case of MOHAMMED SIDDIQUI vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED reported in AIR 2020 SC 520 has held that just because the rider was traveling along with 4 pillion riders, cannot lead to a finding of contributory negligence, unless it is established that his very act of riding along with two others, contributed either to the accident or to the impact of the accident upon the victim.

¶61

In the case on hand, it is not proved that just because the rider was traveling along with two pillion riders has contributed to the accident. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the rider has also contributed to the accident is unsustainable. Therefore, the driver of the Car alone was negligent in causing the accident.

¶62

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:37404 MFA No. 8448 of 2018 C/W MFA No.8450 of 2018

¶63

Accordingly, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in respect of contributory negligence, is set aside to the extent indicated.

¶64

REG:QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION:

¶65

Due to accident, the claimants have sustained grievous injuries. Even though the claimants have suffered injuries and suffered lot of pain during the treatment, they have not examined the doctor. Therefore, considering the evidence of the claimants medical records and injuries suffered by the claimants, I am of the opinion that the compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant in MVC No.396/2017 has to be enhanced to Rs.25,000/- and the compensation of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant in MVC No.398/2017 has to be enhanced to Rs.75,000/-.

¶66

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶67

ORDER

¶68

a) The appeals are disposed of .

¶69

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:37404 MFA No. 8448 of 2018 C/W MFA No.8450 of 2018

¶70

b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶71

c) The claimant in MVC No.396/2017 is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.25,000/-. The claimant in MVC

¶72

No.398/2017 is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.75,000/-.

¶73

d) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount along with interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶74

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶75

¶76

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46

Smt Bhagya v. Haji Irfan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Bhagya v. Haji Irfan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Yashodha Vs v Jayakrishna

Kumari Monika Vs Shri Ravi Nayaka

Sri. Pariyakat Kuriyakose Thomas Vs Sri. Arun Kumar

Smt Bhagirathi Vs Sam Tours & Travels

Smt. Chaithra K J Vs Mr. Manohar Tammaiah

The Branch Manager Vs Praveena