The Managing Director and Its Self Insurance Fund, Vs Shivanand Sangappa Ojag @ Ojaganavar

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12906 MFA No. 20111 of 2013

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 20111 OF 2013 (MV-)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND ITS SELF INSURANCE FUND, NWKRTC, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI.

¶7

THE DIVISIONAL CONTAROLLER, NWKRTC, BANGALORE,

¶8

BOTH ARE REP BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.ROAD, BANGALORE-560027.

¶9

…APPELLANTS

¶10

(BY SRI. S.C. BHUTI, ADV FOR SRI. F S DABALI, ADV)

¶11

AND:

¶12

MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR

¶13

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SHIVANAND SANGAPPA OJAG @ OJAGANAVAR, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: ADHYAPAK NAGAR, NARGUND, DIST: GADAG-582207.

¶15

SHANKAR SAMBAL S/O SHRISHAILAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, NEAR SHANKARLING TEMPLE, KASABA NARAGUND, DIST: GADAG-582207

¶16

(BY SRI. SANTOSH B RAWOOT, ADV FOR R1, NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:24-08-2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.16/2010 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, GADAG, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.2,04,400/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALISATION.

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12906 MFA No. 20111 of 2013

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)

¶25

The NWKRTC has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 24.08.2012 passed in MVC No.16/2010 by the learned District Judge and MACT, Gadag (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).

¶26

Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

¶27

On 30.09.2009, the petitioner and others were traveling in a Tata Ace vehicle bearing registration No.KA-26/6787 from Chitradurga to Hubli. When the said vehicle came near Noolvi cross on PuneBangalore Road, the tire of the Tata-Ace vehicle got punctured and the driver of the vehicle took the punctured tire to Hubli for getting it repaired. The petitioner and other inmates were sleeping in the

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12906 MFA No. 20111 of 2013

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

said vehicle by taking the vehicle on the kachcha road. At that time, one NWKRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-25/F-2585 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the parked Tata-

¶31

Ace vehicle and caused the accident. As a result, the petitioner and other inmates suffered grievous injuries. The petitioner and other inmates filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident.

¶32

The NWKRTC filed a statement of objections denying

¶33

the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the alleged accident has occurred between the two vehicles and the owner and insurer of the other vehicle is also a necessary party. In the absence of the necessary parties, the claim petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. Hence, he prays to dismiss the claim petition.

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12906 MFA No. 20111 of 2013

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

The Tribunal clubbed all the claim petitions and framed common issues.

¶38

The petitioner and other inmates to prove the averments in their claim petitions examined themselves as PWs-1, 3 to 5, examined one witness as PW-2; and marked 64 documents as Exs.P-1 to 64. The doctor was examined on commission in MVC Nos.16/2010 and 19/2010.

¶39

In rebuttal, the driver of the NWKRTC bus was examined as RW-1 and no documents were marked.

¶40

The Tribunal after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence allowed the clam petition in part and awarded compensation of Rs.2,04,400/with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation and NWKRTC was directed to deposit the entire compensation amount.

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12906 MFA No. 20111 of 2013

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

The NWKRTC aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award, filed this appeal.

¶44

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the NWKRTC and the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶45

Learned counsel for the NWKRTC submits that the accident occurred due to the collision between two vehicles and there is negligence on the part of both the drivers of the vehicles involved in the accident. The Tribunal ought to have fastened the liability to some extent on the driver of Tata Ace vehicle for parking the vehicle on the road. He submits that the Tribunal committed an error in fastening the entire liability on NWKRTC. He also submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.

¶46

Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accident occurred due to the rash

¶47

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12906 MFA No. 20111 of 2013

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

and negligent driving by the driver of the NWKRTC

¶50

bus and hence, the charge sheet is filed against only the driver of the bus in question. He submits that the driver of the Tata Ace has not contributed in

¶51

causing of the accident in any manner. Hence, the question of considering the contributory negligence does not arise. He submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and the liability fastened on the NWKRTC is just and proper. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶52

Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶53

The points that would arise for consideration are the liability and the quantum of compensation.

¶54

There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident, the petitioner, and other inmates of the Tata Ace sustaining grievous injuries in the road

¶55

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12906 MFA No. 20111 of 2013

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

traffic accident, and the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the NWKRTC bus in question.

¶58

The petitioner has produced the charge-sheet marked as Ex.P-7 which discloses that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the NWKRTC bus in question. The Tribunal was justified in recording a finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus.

¶59

Further, the learned counsel for the NWKRTC submits that the driver of the Tata Ace has also contributed to the cause of the accident.

¶60

Admittedly, the NWKRTC has not examined any eyewitness to prove that the driver of the Tata Ace has also contributed for the cause of the accident. Admittedly, the charge-sheet is filed only against the driver of the NWKRTC bus in question.

¶61

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12906 MFA No. 20111 of 2013

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly fastened the entire liability on the NWKRTC.

¶64

I do not find any error in the impugned judgment and award regarding fastening of the liability on the NWKRTC.

¶65

Reg. Quantum :

¶66

Insofar as quantum of compensation is concerned, the accident is of the year 2009 and the Tribunal has assessed the income of the petitioner at Rs.4,000/- per month. Though, as per the Schedule notified by the KSLSA, the income should have been taken at Rs.5,000/- per month, however, the petitioner has not challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Further, the Tribunal rightly assessed the disability at 10%.

¶67