Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 24557
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
MR. ASHOK S. KINAGI, J
SHRI PUNDALIK S/O KAREPPA GAVANNAVAR – Appellant
Versus
SHRI. LALEMASHAK RAZAK MOHANKUMAR S/O ABDUL RAZAK – Respondent
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102782 OF 2017 (MV-I) | MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100611 OF 2018 (MV-I) | MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100612 OF 2018 | MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100613 OF 2018 (MV-I) | MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100614 OF 2018 (MV-I) | MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100615 OF 2018 (MV-I)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. HANAMANT R LATUR
For the Respondents: SRI. C.V. ANGADI, SRI. SANTOSH B. RAWOOT, SRI. G.N. RAICHUR, SRI. H.M. DHARIGOND
The court clarified compensation standards under the Motor Vehicles Act, finding the initial awards inadequate and enhancing them significantly based on assessed injuries.
Headnote:This judgment examines claims arising from multiple MVCs filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, following a traffic accident on 16.06.2012, resulting in injuries to petitioners seeking compensation. The Tribunal initially awarded a total of varying amounts to petitioners, reflecting primary injuries sustained. Notably, the primary queries included whether compensation was adequate and whether negligence was established effectively on drivers' part. The appeals led to the court concluding that the compensation was inadequate, therefore modifying the awards to Rs.75,000 for each petitioner, while maintaining the rest of the Tribunal’s order.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of appeals and common judgment context. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. summary of parties' disputes and initial claims. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. details of evidence presented before the tribunal. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. arguments presented by both appellant and respondent. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. court's identification of issues and determination process. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 6. findings and revised compensation determination. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 7. final orders and decisions regarding appeals. (Para 18 , 19) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
These appeals arise out of a common judgment and award dated 03.06.2016 passed in MVCs No.2250/2013, 2247/2013, 2248/2013, 2249/2013, 2251/2013 and 1745/2013 by the learned VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi (‘Tribunal’ for short).
2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of these appeals are as follows:
3. On 16.06.2012 at about 11:45 p.m., the petitioners in the petitions loaded their tin sheets in the goods vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-24/5423 and were proceeding in the said vehicle from Belagavi to Sidnal Village along with their tin sheets. When they reached near Karemma Temple, the driver of the Maruti Omni bearing Reg.No.GA-02/J-2872 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and dashed to the goods vehicle. As a result, the petitioners sustained grievous injuries. The petitioners have filed claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petitions.
4. A notice was issued to the owners of the respective vehicles. They filed their statements of objections denying the averments made in the claim petitions and denying that the accident occurred due to the the rash and negligent driving of the drivers both vehicles. It was contended that, the driver of both the vehicles possessed valid and effective driving licences as of the date of the accident and the insurance policy was valid and hence, prays to dismiss the claim petitions against the owners of both the vehicles.
5. The Insurance Companies of both the vehicles have filed their statements of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the drivers of both the vehicles did not possess valid and effective driving licences as of the date of the accident and there was a contributory negligence on the part of the drivers of the vehicles involved in the accident. The petitioners were travelling as gratuitous passengers. Thus, there is a violation of policy conditions. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petitions against both the Insurance Companies.
6. The Tribunal clubbed all the claim petitions and framed separate issues in each claim petitions.
7. The petitioners, to substantiate their case, the petitioner in MVC No.2250/2013 was examined as PW-1 and marked the documents at Exs.P1 to P9 and P19 to P25; the petitioner in MVC No.2247/2013 was examined as PW-2, and marked the documents at Exs.P26 to P33; the petitioner in MVC No.2248/2013 was examined as PW-3, and marked the documents at Exs.P34 to P39; the petitioner in MVC No.2249/2013 was examined as PW-4, and marked the documents at Exs.P46 to 51; the petitioner in MVC No.2251/2013 was examined as PW-5, and marked the documents at Exs.P42 to 45; the petitioner in MVC No.1745/2013 was examined as PW-6, and marked the documents at Exs.P10 to P18; the Medical Officer was examined as PW-7, and marked the documents at Exs.P17, P17a, P24, P24a, P32, P32a, P38, P38a, P44, P44a, P51, P51a, P12a, P13a, P19a, P20a, P26a, P28a, P34a, P35a, P40a, P41a, P46a and P47a. In rebuttal, the National Insurance Company Limited marked two documents as Exs.R1 and R2 with consent, and the owner of the goods vehicle was examined as RW-1, and marked one document as Ex.R3; the Officer of National Insurance Co. Ltd. was examined as RW-2, and marked one document as Ex.R4; one witness was examined as RW-3, and two documents were marked
