The court upheld the tribunal's findings, citing liability under highway statutes concerning negligence in cattle management leading to vehicle accidents.

JUDGMENT

Heard Sri.Sanjay S. Katageri, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.G.N.Raichur, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

2. Unsuccessful claimant has filed the present appeal challenging the validity of the judgment and award passed in MVC No.823/2013 dated 01.10.2012 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Khanapur.

3. Brief facts of the case are as under:

A claim petition came to be filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act contending that on 17.07.2012 at about 4.30 p.m. on Khanapur - Belagavi road (NH.4A) near the house of one Sri.Kocheri, driver of the Tata Ace Magic, bearing No.KA.22/P.5970 drove the same in rash and negligent manner and dashed against a she buffalo belonging to the claimant and 17 days later, the she buffalo died on account of accidental injuries and sought for appropriate compensation.

4. Claim petition, was resisted by filing necessary written statement by the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle.

5. Tribunal raised following issues:

“1. Whether the petitioner proves that on 17.02.2012 at about 4.30 hours, on Kharanapur-Belgaum road, near the house of one Shri. Kocheri, she buffalo carrying calk, owned by petitioner, sustained grievous injuries in the accident occurred due to rash or negligent, driving of the vehicle, bearing registration No:KA-22/P- 5970, by its driver and later it succumbed to the said injuries?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to for compensation? If so, what amount and from whom?

3. What order?”

6. In order to prove the case of the claimant, claimant got examined himself as P.W.1 and placed on record, nine documentary evidence on record which are marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9 comprising of certified copy of FIR and complaint, English translation of the complaint, certified copy of spot mahajar, certified copy of the map, MVI report, wound certificate, P.M. report and certified copy of the charge sheet.

7. On behalf of respondents, no documentary evidence is placed on record.

8. Thereafter, Tribunal heard the parties in detail and taking note of the fact that the material evidence placed on record, recorded a categorical finding that there was a rash and negligent driving on the part if the driver of Tata Ace Magic vehicle, but relying on the provision of Section 8B of National Highway Act , 1956 and Section 37 of the Control of National Highway (Land and Traffic Act, 2002), dismissed the claim petition.

9. Being aggrieved by the same, claimant has preferred the present appeal.

10. Sri.Sanjay S. Katageri, learned counsel for appellant/claimant, reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum sought for allowing the appeal by contending that when the she buffalo was being brought back to the house after gracing it in the area, accident has occurred. Therefore, it cannot be construed that the accident is on account of stray cattle on National Highway attracting the provisions of Section 8B of National Highway Act , 1956 or for that matter Section 37 of Control of National Highway (Land and Traffic Act, 2002) and Tribunal has not bestowed its attention by dismissing the claim petition and sought for allowing the appeal.

11. Per contra Sri.G.N.Raichur, learned counsel supported the impugned judgment stating that provisions of National Highway Act , 1956 has rightly upheld by the Tribunal in view of the specific admission made by C.W.1 in hiss cross - examination and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

12. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, this Court perused the material on record, meticulously.

13. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the incident has occurred in middle of the road and not side of the road as is clai