Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 36661
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
M.F.A. NO.20931/2011 (MV)
C/W
M.F.A. NO.20932/2011 (MV)
IN M.F.A.NO.20931/2011:
BETWEEN:
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY
PROJECT DIRECTOR, PIU CHITRADURGA,
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, NEAR J.M.I.T.
CHITRADURGA-577502.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. JAYA B. BUNGLEY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SRI. MUTTANNA
S/O SHADEVAPPA THOTAD,
AGED ABOUT 31 YRS,
OCC: OWNER OF COMMISSION AGENCY SHOP,
R/O CHALAGERI, TALUK RANIBENNUR,
DISTRICT HAVERI.
2.
SRI. SANJEEV MAHESHAPPA THEGGIN
AGE: MAJOR,
OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE HERO HONDA
BEARING REG. NO.KA/27/J-8292
R/O CHALAGERI, TALUK RANIBENNUR,
DISTRICT HAVERI.
2
3.
THE BRANCH MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR,
KRISHNA AGENCY, BUILDING,
P.B.ROAD, HAVERI.
4.
M/S. ESSAR CONSTRUCTION PROJECT LTD.,
P.B.ROAD, HONNUR GOLLARAHATTI CROSS,
DAVANAGERE.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. AVINASH BANAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NO.1;
NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.2;
SRI. RAJESH B. RAJANAL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3;
SRI. MAHESH WODEYAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 30.04.2010 PASSED IN MVC NO.133/2006, ON
THE FILE OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT,
RANEBENNUR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.11,000/-
WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL ITS DEPOSIT.
IN M.F.A.NO.20932/2011:
BETWEEN:
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY
PROJECT DIRECTOR, PIU CHITRADURGA,
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, NEAR J.M.I.T.,
CHITRADURGA-577502.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. JAYA B. BUNGLEY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SRI. MAHESHAPPA
S/O SIDDAPPA THEGGIN
3
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/O CHALAGERI, TALUK RANIBENNUR,
DISTRICT HAVERI.
2.
SRI. SANJEEV MAHESHAPPA THEGGIN
AGE: MAJOR,
OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE HERO HONDA
BEARING REG. NO.KA/27/J-8292
R/O CHALAGERI, TALUK RANIBENNUR,
DISTRICT HAVERI.
3.
THE BRANCH MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR,
KRISHNA AGENCY, BUILDING,
P.B.ROAD, HAVERI.
4.
M/S. ESSAR CONSTRUCTION PROJECT LTD.,
P.B.ROAD, HONNUR GOLLARAHATTI CROSS,
DAVANAGERE.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. AVINASH BANAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NOs.1 AND 2;
SRI. RAJESH B. RAJANAL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3;
SRI. MAHESH WODEYAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 30.04.2010 PASSED IN MVC NO.132/2006, ON
THE FILE OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT,
RANEBENNUR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.4,12,500/-
WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL ITS DEPOSIT.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR
Important Points
Subject
Torts - Negligence
Headnote
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT - LIABILITY - NEGLIGENCE - [KEYWORD] - [SUBJECT] - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:
On 11.05.2003, a motorcycle rider, Raju, died in an accident when he rammed into drums placed as barricades on a dug-up portion of the road. The accident occurred due to the blinding lights of an oncoming vehicle and the lack of adequate warning signs. The deceased's father and an injured pillion rider filed claims under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the owner, insurer, National Highways Authority of India (Authority), and the contractor responsible for the roadwork.
Finding of the Court:
The Tribunal found the Authority and its contractor negligent for not providing adequate warning signs and held them liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The insurer denied liability, arguing that the deceased was not a third party and that the pillion rider was not covered by the policy.
Issues: 1. Whether the Authority was negligent in not providing adequate warning signs.2. Whether the deceased was a third party entitled to compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.3. Whether the pillion rider was covered by the insurance policy.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Authority has an absolute duty to ensure the safety of road users and can be held liable for injuries caused by its negligence or defective supervision.2. The deceased, who was riding the motorcycle with permission from the owner, was a third party entitled to compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.3. The pillion rider was not covered by the insurance policy as he was not a named insured or an occupant carried for hire or reward.
Final Decision: The appeals filed by the Authority were dismissed, and the Tribunal's judgment and awards were upheld. The Authority was directed to deposit the balance compensation amount within 30 days and was given the liberty to recover the amount from the contractor.
ON
20.10.2022,
COMING
ON
PRONOUNCEMENT
OF
JUDGMENT
THROUGH
VIDEO
CONFERENCING AT THE PRINCIPAL BENCH AT BENGALURU,
THIS DAY , THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
4
JUDGMENT
M.F.A. Nos.20931/2011 and 20932/2011 are
filed by the National Highways Authority of India
(henceforth referred to as “Authority” in short) challenging
the common Judgment dated 30.04.2010 and separate
Awards passed by the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court,
Ranebennur (henceforth referred to as “Tribunal” in short)
in MVC NOs.133/2006 and 132/2006 respectively, in so far
as it relates to the finding of the Tribunal that the accident
occurred due to the negligence of the Authority and also
the finding that it is liable to pay the compensation
determined therein.
The respective petitioner in MVC Nos.132/2006
and 133/2006 before the Tribunal will henceforth be
referred to as 'claimant'. Respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4
before the Tribunal will henceforth be referred to as
‘owner’, ‘insurer’, ‘Authority’ and ‘Contractor’ respectively.
5
The claimant in MVC No.133/2006 was the
injured victim while the claimant in MVC No.132/2006 was
the father of the deceased Sri Raju Maheshappa Theggin
('Raju' for short), rider of the motorcycle bearing
registration No.KA.27/J.8292 (henceforth referred to as
'motorcycle'). In the claim petitions, it is pleaded that on
11.05.2003 at about 11.30 p.m., the deceased Raju was
riding the said motorcycle along with two pillion riders,
namely, claimant/s in MVC Nos.131/2006 and 133/2006
on National Highway No.4. When they reached Halebathi
village on Davanagere-Harihara road, a heavy goods
vehicle was driven from the opposite direction with blazing
lights on. The rider of the motorcycle was blinded by the
light and in an attempt to avoid an accident, moved the
motorcycle to the left side of the road, unaware of the fact
that the Authority had dug a 10 feet x 10 feet ditch, which
was barricaded by blackened drums. He rammed into the
drums and fell into the ditch, dying instantaneously while
the pillion rider i.e., the claimant in MVC No.133/2006
suffered injuries. Hence, separate claim petitions were
6
filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(for short, 'the M.V. Act, 1988'). The injured claimant
claimed Rs.2,00,000/-, while the dependant/father of the
deceased rider of the motorcycle claimed Rs.5,00,000/-
from the owner and the insurer of the motorcycle and the
Authority as well as the Contractor who was executing the
work.
Though the notice/s of the claim petition/s
was/were served on the owner of the motorcycle as well as
the Authority and its Contractor, the Authority remained ex
parte in both the claim petitions. Though owner and
Contractor appeared through their counsel, they did not
file their written statement.
5.
The insurer of the motorcycle contested the
case - MVC No.132/2006 contending that the motorcycle
was not insured by it. It contended that a petition under
Section 163A of the M.V. Act, 1988 was not maintainable
since an abated charge sheet was filed against the
deceased rider for the offences punishable under Sections
7
279, 337, and 304A of the IPC. It alleged that the
deceased rider did not possess a valid driving licence to
ride the motorcycle. It claimed that the deceased was
riding the motorcycle along with two pillion riders and
therefore, the accident occurred due to overloading on the
motorcycle. It contended that the owner of the motorcycle
had allowed an unauthorized person to ride the motorcycle
and therefore he had violated the terms of the policy of
insurance and hence, it was not liable to indemnify the
owner. It contended that the claimants themselves claimed
that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the
Authority and the Contractor in not putting up enough sign
boards about the excavation of a part of the road and
hence, it was not liable to indemnify the owner of the
motorcycle. As is normally done by any insurer, it denied
the age, occupation and income of the deceased as
