2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 31770
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
M. F. A. NO.201305 OF 2016 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
SHANTI TOWERS, 5TH FLOOR, 1451, 3RD MAIN
EAST NGEF LAYOUT, KASTURI NAGAR,
BANGALORE,
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S S ASPALLI, ADV.)
AND
1.
BAPUGOUDA
S/O SHANTHGOUDA POLICE PATIL
AGE:28 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O: DAND SOLAPUR, TQ: SHORAPUR,
NOW RESIDING AT DARIYAPUR VILLAGE,
TQ: SHAHPUR,
DISTRICT YADGIR - 585 201
2.
RUPALI KALANTRI
W/O LATE PRAVEEN
R/O KALANTRI KUNJ, S.B.H.COLONY,
HUMNABAD ROAD, NEHRU GUNJ
2
HOUSE NO. WEF 7-5-12,
GULBARGA - 585 103
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHIVASHARAN REDDY, ADV. FOR R1
SRI. ANANTH S. JAHAGIRDAR, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING
TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN MVC NO.303/13 AND SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD 30/1/16 IN MVC
NO. 303/13 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
ADDL. MACT SHORAPUR SITTING AT SHAHAPUR.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’,
for short) has been filed by the Insurance Company
being aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.01.2016
passed in MVC No.303/2013 by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal.
For the sake of convenience, parties are referred
to as per their ranking before the Claims Tribunal.
Appellant is respondent No.2; respondent No.1 is the
3
petitioner and respondent No.2 is respondent No.1
before the claims Tribunal.
Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 30.03.2013, at 5 p.m. on the
NH-218 near Fartabad Village before Ganesh Petrol
Bunk, when the petitioner was proceeding on the
motorcycle from the side of Gulbarga, at that time, a
lorry bearing registration No.KA-32-A-9380 being
driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and
negligent manner, dashed to the vehicle of the
petitioner. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the
petitioner sustained grievous injuries.
3.
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 166
of the Act seeking for compensation. The respondent
No.1 filed written statement denying the averments
made in the claim petition and prayed to dismiss the
petition.
4
4.
Respondent No.2 filed written statement in
which the averments made in the petition were
denied. It is contended that the driver of the
offending vehicle did not had valid driving licence as
on the date of the accident and thus there is violation
of policy conditions by its owner. Further it is
contended that the said accident was caused only due
to negligence of the rider of motorcycle, but not due
to the negligence of the driver of lorry and hence,
sought for dismissal of the petition.
5.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,
the Claims Tribunal framed the following issues and
additional issues:
Issues
1)
Whether the petitioner proves that on
30.03.2013 when the petitioner and one
Maheboob after the registration of their
vehicle both of them were returning from
Gulbarga
on
their
motorcycle
near
Farthabad
village
lorry
bearing
Registration No.KA-32-A-9380 came from
5
opposite side being driven by its driver in
a high speed, rash and negligent manner
and dashed to the petitioner’s motorcycle.
As such petitioner and rider of the vehicle
have fell down on the road and sustained
the fatal injuries as contended in the
petition ?
2)
Whether the petitioner is entitled for the
compensation? If so, to what extent and
against whom?
3)
What order or award?
Additional Issues
1)
Whether the 2nd respondent proves that,
there is a contributory negligence on the
part of the rider of the motorcycle? If so,
to what extent?
2)
Whether the 2nd respondent proves that,
the driver of lorry bearing No.KA-32-A-
9380 did not possess the valid and
effective driving licence?
Thereafter the Tribunal recorded the evidence. The
petitioner examined himself as PW-1 and examined
the doctor as PW-2 and got exhibited documents
namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P16. Respondent No.1 lead
evidence through Special Power of Attorney holder as
6
RW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to
Ex.R6. Respondent No2 examined its official as RW-2
and got marked Ex.R7. The Claims Tribunal, after
considering
the
materials
available
on
record,
recorded a finding that the petitioner has proved that
on 30.03.2013, petitioner and one Maheboob Sheik
were coming on a motor cycle and the offending
vehicle came from the opposite side in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed to the said motorcycle
and as a result of which, the petitioner sustained
injuries. The Tribunal further held that petitioner is
entitled for compensation and further held that
respondent No.2 has failed to prove that there is
contributory negligence on the part of the rider of
motor cycle and also held that respondent No.2 has
failed to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle
did not possess a valid and effective driving licence as
on the date of accident and consequently allowed the
7