MFA.No.9344/2017

is

filed

by

the

claimant

challenging the judgment and award dated 26.04.2017 in

MVC.No.764/2015 passed by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge

and MACT XI, Tumakuru, for seeking enhancement of the

compensation.

MFA.No.3233/2018 is filed by the owner of the Eicher

Vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-06-D-0884 challenging the

aforesaid judgment and award on rash and negligent

aspect as well as on quantum of compensation.

Brief facts of the case are that, on 23.01.2015

at about 11.00 pm., deceased-Karthik was proceeding on

motor

bike

bearing

Reg.No.KA-48-L-4887

towards

B.H.Road i.e., Tumkur to Batawadi. When he reached near

Tumkur University, one Eicher Vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-

- 4 -

06-D-0884 was parked on the middle of the road without

following traffic rules and precautionary indications and

doing the road repair work. The parked vehicle was not

visible due to dust spread all over the area and hence,

dashed against the parked vehicle and the said deceased-

Karthik sustained severe injuries all over the body and

succumbed to the injuries.

Heard the arguments from both sides and

perused the records.

4.

Learned counsel for the owner of Eicher Vehicle

bearing

Reg.No.KA-06-D-0884

submitted

that

the

deceased by coming with high speed and in a rash and

negligent manner had dashed to the Eicher truck, which

was parked in the road for cleaning purpose. Therefore, in

the complaint itself, it is alleged that the deceased has

also contributed his rashness and negligent, but the

Tribunal has committed error by fastening the entire

- 5 -

rashness and negligence on the driver of the Eicher truck.

Therefore, requested to hold that the deceased has also

equally contributed rash and negligent aspect.

5.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the

claimant submitted that the accident was caused due to

negligent parking of the Eicher truck on the road by its

driver without putting any indicator or signal. Therefore,

submitted that the finding given by the Tribunal is just and

proper.

6.

In the present case, the Eicher truck was

parked on the road for cleaning purpose. The accident was

caused in the night at about 11:00 p.m. There is no

evidence on the part of the owner of the truck that the

truck was parked with signal or indicator. Since, the truck

was parked on the road for cleaning purpose, then the

driver of the truck ought to have put signal or indicator

inviting the attention of other vehicles that the truck was

parked on the road. Even the driver also could have put

- 6 -

stones around the truck inviting the attention of other

vehicles, but without doing all these things negligently

parked the truck on the road. It is the gross negligence on

the part of the driver of the truck.

7.

Section 122 of Motor Vehicles Act mandates on

the part of the driver of the vehicle that, wherever the

vehicle is required to be parked on the road, then

necessary precautions should be taken by putting signal or

indicator or stones around the vehicle or putting red tape

around the vehicle inviting the attention of other passerby

vehicles that the vehicle is parked on the road. Therefore,

the Tribunal is correct in holding that the truck was parked

negligently on the road and therefore, the deceased could

not notice that the truck was parked and dashed the hind

portion of the truck. Therefore, resulted into filing of

charge sheet against the driver of the truck as the truck

was parked negligently on the road causing death of the

deceased. Therefore, in this regard, I do not find any

- 7 -

infirmity in the finding given by the Tribunal by holding

that the driver of the truck was completely rash and

negligent and also in violation of Section 122 of Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988.

8.

In the present case, the deceased was aged 19

years and was a bachelor. The deceased was working as

helper in AVM small industry. The Tribunal has taken the

notional income at Rs.6,500/- per month, which is on the

lesser side. The accident was caused in the year 2015.

Therefo