Vishwa S/O. Shivanand Bellary Vs the Branch Manager

SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.10.2014 IN M.V.C. NO.04/2013 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL. SENIOR

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14218 MFA No. 101429 of 2015

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT, HAVERI, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶24

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

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI)

¶27

Respondent No.1 in MVC No. 4/2013 has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 31.10.2014 passed in MVC No. 4/2013 by the Learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and AMACT, Haveri (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) to the limited extent questioning correctness of saddling him with the liability to pay 50% of the compensation amount i.e., ₹66,300/– along with interest.

¶28

Perusal of the record reveals that learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition filed by Sri Abdul Munaf under Section 166 of the M.V. Act and held that Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay 50% of

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14218 MFA No. 101429 of 2015

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

the compensation amount, i.e., ₹66,300/–, together with interest thereon at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.

¶32

It was the case of the Claimant that on 15.09.2012 at about 3.15 p.m. when he was riding the motor cycle bearing No.KA-27-S-5284 on Haveri and Hangal Road, near Fire Station in Haveri, he met with an accident due to actionable negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle bearing No.KA-27-X-1999 and sustained injuries in the said incident.

¶33

Undisputedly, Appellant herein is the owner and Respondent No.1 herein - the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., is the insurer of the motor cycle bearing No.KA-27-X1999. The Tribunal, while answering Issue No.2, has held that the accident in question occurred due to contributory negligence of the Claimant as well as Respondent No.1 therein and that they were equally responsible for the accident. In view of the same, learned Tribunal while considering the question of satisfying the award, fixed the

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14218 MFA No. 101429 of 2015

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

liability of 50% each on Claimant and Respondent No.1 therein. Accordingly, learned Tribunal held that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay 50% of the compensation amount i.e. Rs.66,300/- out of total compensation of Rs.1,32,600/- together with interest.

¶37

The Appellant, who is Respondent No.1 before the Tribunal has preferred this appeal challenging the liability caste on him by the Tribunal on the ground that it has not failed to consider existing valid policy. The above narrated factual aspects of the case give an impression that the Appellant has preferred this appeal under a wrong notion and without properly going through the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. In view of the same, this Court holds that the Appellant has not made out any valid ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and award as prayed in the appeal.

¶38