Back
2019 Supreme(Kar) 999
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
G. NARENDAR, BELLUNKE A.S., JJ.
Manohar - Appellant
Versus
Naazparaveen Abdulkarim Dakani - Respondent
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 101108, 101452 of 2015
Decided on : 14-06-2019
Advocate Appeared:
Rebecca Soloman, Adv., Vitthal S. Teli, Adv., Harsh Desai, Adv., N.R. Kuppelur, Adv., K.H. Bagi, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of negligence in a road traffic accident, the apportionment of liability among the parties involved, and the reassessment of compensation based on the evidence presented.
Headnote:
Negligence - Road Traffic Accident - Motor Vehicles Act - Sections 279, 338, 146, 196 - The court found that the accident was solely caused by the rash and negligent driving of the motor car driver, holding the owners of both vehicles jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. The court also reassessed the compensation amount and absolved the third respondent from liability.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a road traffic accident where the driver of a car collided with an auto rickshaw, resulting in grievous injuries to the rickshaw passenger. The injured claimant filed a petition seeking compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accident was solely caused by the rash and negligent driving of the motor car driver, absolving the third respondent from liability and holding the owners of both vehicles jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. The court also reassessed the compensation amount and directed the owners to satisfy the re-assessed compensation with interest.
Issues: The issues included the determination of negligence, liability for the accident, and the quantum of compensation payable to the injured claimant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the accident was solely caused by the rash and negligent driving of the motor car driver, absolving the third respondent from liability and holding the owners of both vehicles jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. The court also reassessed the compensation amount based on the evidence and directed the owners to satisfy the re-assessed compensation with interest.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals, modified the judgment and award, and directed the owners of the vehicles to satisfy the re-assessed compensation with interest, absolving the third respondent from liability.
JUDGMENT :
BELLUNKE A.S., J.
1. These two appeals arise out of a judgment and award passed in M.V.C. No.330/2014 passed by the Fast Track Court-I I and Addl. M.A.C.T., Belagavi dated 16.01.2015 (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal , for the sake of brevity).
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.
3. Though both the appeals arose out of a single incident of road traffic accident, they are clubbed together, heard and disposed off finally.
4. The brief facts for the purpose of these appeals are as under:
That on 25.01.2014 at 8.10 p.m. on Belgaum- Sambra road, near Basavan Kudachi , the driver of the car, bearing registration No.KA-28/M-8315, owned by first respondent and insured by second respondent was coming from Sambra towards Belagavi and drove the same at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-23/6806 owned by the third respondent, in which one Manohar was traveling and which was coming from Belagavi towards Sambra in a moderate speed, thereby causing him grievous injuries like fracture. He took treatment for the same in a hospital. His left leg above knee was amputated. Therefore, the injured claimant filed claim petition seeking compensation.
5. After service of notice, all the three respondents appeared through their respective counsel and filed their written statements denying the petition averments.
6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration:
(1) Whether the petitioner proves that on 25.01.2014 at 8.10 p.m. near Basavan Kudashi on Belgaum-Sambra road the petitioner sustained injuries due to the rash or negligent driving of the vehicles bearing registration No.KA-28/M-8315 and KA-23-6806 by its drivers?
(2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to for compensation? If so, what amount and from whom?
(3) What order?
7. After holding trial, the Tribunal answered the issues in the positive and quantified the compensation payable to the injured as under:
| Pain and sufferings | Rs.50,000/- |
| Loss of future happiness and amenities | Rs.1,00,000/- |
| Loss of income during the treatment period | Rs.26,000/- |
| Incidental charges | Rs.28,000/- |
| Medical expenses | Rs.1,00,000/- |
| Future medical expenses | Rs.50,000/- |
| Towards loss of future income | Rs.6,24,000/- |
| Total | Rs.9,78,000/- |
8. The Tribunal found that there was composite negligence on the part of both the drivers of the vehicles. Therefore, the owners of both the vehicles jointly and severally were held liable to satisfy the award. Since the vehicle owned by the third respondent was not having insurance, the Tribunal fastened the liability on respondent Nos.1 and 2 to pay compensation of Rs.4,64,000/- and held liable the respondent No.3 to pay the compensation of Rs.4,64,000/- along with simple interest @ 9% per annum from 15.02.2014. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has filed M.F.A.No.101108/2015 whereas the owner has filed M.F.A.No.101452/2015 questioning the liability fastened on him.
9. The appellant in M.F.A.No.101452/2015 has challenged the judgment and award on the following grounds:
It is submitted that the judgment and award is passed by the Tribunal is contrary to law and evidence on record. Hence, it is liable to be set aside against the appellant is concerned.
The accident has occurred only on account of negligence on the part of the motorcar driver. The fixing of liability on this appellant by the Tribunal is illegal and bad in the eye of law.
The Tribunal wrongly came to the conclusion that it was a case of contributory negligence.
The material eye witnesses PWs-1 and 2 have clearly stated that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent act of the car driver. Therefore, the Tribunal failed to appreciate Exs.P-1 to P-6
