SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top