Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 1199
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.
Appasaheb S/O Babu Jadav - Appellant – Appellant
Versus
Tukaram S/O Satteppa Hanamantagol – Respondent
MFA No. 23091 of 2013, C/W MFA No. 101752 of 2015
Decided On : 11-09-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI
For the Respondent: SRI. HANAMANT R. LATUR
Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the accident resulted from the driver's negligence, affirming the adequacy of the awarded compensation despite claims of contributory negligence.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173(1) - Appeal from judgment and award dated 29.05.2013 - Claim for compensation on account of road traffic accident - The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,79,960/- for grievous injuries suffered by the petitioner - The owner of the offending vehicle contested the liability and the amount of compensation awarded. (Paras 1, 7, 11, 14, 16)
(B) Accident liability - The court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto rickshaw driver, noting the absence of evidence from the driver and owner to establish contributory negligence by the petitioner. (Paras 15, 16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was injured in a collision with an auto rickshaw while riding his motorcycle on 24.12.2010 due to the negligent driving of the auto driver. He sought compensation under Section 166 of the M.V. Act due to substantial medical expenses.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal's conclusion was that liability for the accident lay solely with the auto rickshaw driver, and the compensation awarded was deemed just and appropriate.
Issues: The main issue was the quantum of compensation and the liability of the parties involved in the accident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court confirmed that the petitioner was not at fault, corroborated by the police charge sheet indicating the driver's negligence; the Tribunal's assessment of functional disability was also accepted as adequate.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts surrounding the incident and claims. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. defendants' objections to the claims. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. tribunal's issue framing and appeals initiated. (Para 6 , 8) |
| 4. arguments regarding accident liability and compensation. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. court's consideration of evidence and arguments. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 6. assessment of evidence and reason for compensation determination. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 7. final order and dismissal of appeals. (Para 17) |
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. These appeals are filed under Section 173(1) of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘M.V.Act,’ for short) arising out of the judgment and award dated 29.05.2013 passed in MVC No.291/2011 by the learned Fast Track Court and MACT, Hukkeri, sitting at Gokak.
2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of these appeals are as follows:
3. On 24.12.2010 at about 4.45 p.m., when the petitioner was proceeding on Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle bearing Registration No. KA-22/U-4478 from Dr. Hosmani hospital to Jyoti Peg Bar road, at that time, the driver of an Auto rickshaw bearing Registration No. KA-23/6158, drove the Auto rickshaw in a rash and negligent manner and collided with the motorcycle. As a result, the petitioner met with an accident and sustained grievous injuries and he has spent huge amount towards medical and other expenses. The petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V Act, seeking for compensation on the account of the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident.
4. The driver and the owner of the Auto rickshaw filed a separate statement of objections. The driver of the Auto rickshaw filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and denied the alleged accident. It is contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is exorbitant. Hence, on these grounds prays to dismiss the claim petition against the driver of the offending vehicle.
5. The owner of the offending vehicle filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition, and contended that the petitioner colluding with the police officials got created false and bogus documents against the driver of the Auto rickshaw. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition.
6. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues.
7. The petitioner, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW.1 and examined a doctor as PW.2 and marked 61 documents as Exs.P1 to P61. In rebuttal, the driver examined a power of attorney holder as RW.1 and marked one document as Ex.R-1. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence allowed the claim petition in part, and awarded the compensation of Rs.2,79,960/- with interest @ 6% p.a. It is held that the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner.
8. The owner of the offending vehicle, aggrieved by the judgment and award passed in MVC No.291/2011 preferred an appeal in MFA No.23091/2013 and the petitioner being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal in MVC No.291/2011 filed an appeal in MFA No.101752/2015.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the owner of the offending vehicle and the learned counsel for the petitioner.
10. Learned counsel for the owner of the offending vehicle submits that the petitioner has contributed for the cause of accident. The Tribunal ought to have fastened the liability on the petitioner for contributing the cause of accident. He also submits that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant. He submits that he is an editor of the newspaper and there is no loss of future earning capacity. The Tribunal has committed an error in awarding compensation under the head of loss of future income. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal filed by him and dismiss the appeal filed by the petitioner.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge sheet is filed against the driver of t
