1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

AND

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

M.F.A. NO.3352 OF 2015 (MV-D)

BETWEEN:

1.

SMT. SHASHI @ SHASHIKALA

W/O LATE DINESH M.L.,

AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,

HOUSE WIFE

2.

SHRIMANTHA

D/O LATE DINESH M.L.,

AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS

3.

SNEHITH

S/O LATE DINESH M.L.,

AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS

APPELLANTS NO.2 AND 3 SINCE MINORS,

REP. BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN

APPELLANT NO.1

4.

SMT. JAYAMMA,

W/O LATE LAXMANAGOWDA M.S.,

AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

ALL ARE R/O MANNIKERE VILLAGE,

MUDIGERE-577132

CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK AND DISTRICT.

...APPELLANTS

2

(BY SRI. SRIKANTH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SACHIN B.S.,

ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

S.A. RAJEGOWDA

S/O S. ANNAIAH,

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

R/O BAKKUR VILLAGE AND POST,

ARAKALGUDU TALUK,

HASSAN DISTRICT-573201.

2.

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER

KSRTC, HASSAN DIVISION,

HASSAN DISTRICT,

MANGALORE D.K. DISTRICT-573201.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. D.VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2;

VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 21.01.2021 SRI. D.VIJAYAKUMAR,

ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1)

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER

SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST

THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.02.2015 IN MVC

NO.147/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

AND MEMBER MACT, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISMISSING THE

CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,

NATARAJ RANGASWAMY, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Though this appeal is listed for admission, the same

is taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned

counsel for the parties.

3

2.

The parties shall henceforth be referred to as

they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3.

The claim petition discloses that the claimants

are all the legal representatives of Dinesh. It is stated that

on 16.12.2011, Dinesh was traveling towards Hanbal from

Jannapura. When he reached Mudigere-Sakaleshpura

Road, a bus belonging to the respondent No.2 bearing

registration No.KA-13-F-1518 (hereinafter referred to as

the ‘offending vehicle’) driven by the respondent No.1

dangerously and at a high speed dashed against the motor

cycle of Dinesh. As a result, Dinesh sustained grievous

injuries on his head, chest and other parts of the body. He

was shifted to M.G.M Hospital, Mudigere but despite

treatment, he succumbed to the injuries. The claimants

contended that the deceased was employed as a driver

and also an agriculturist and was earning a sum of

Rs.20,000/- per month. They claimed that due to the

untimely death, they had lost the earning member in the

family. Thus, they filed a claim petition under Section 166

4

of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of a sum

of Rs.20,00,000/- from the respondents.

4.

The driver of the offending vehicle though

served with the notice, did not appear before the Court

and was placed exparte. The owner of the offending

vehicle contested the claim petition and contended that the

driver of the offending vehicle was not negligent but it was

the deceased who was negligent in riding the motor cycle.

They contended that the deceased had no valid and

effective driving licence to ride the motor cycle. Based on

these rival contentions, the Tribunal framed issues and set

down the case for trial.

5.

The Claimant No.1 was examined as PW1 and

a witness was examined as PW2 and they marked

documents as Exs.P1 to P10. The driver of the offending

vehicle was examined as RW1 and he marked documents

as Exs.R1 to R12.

5

6.

Based on the oral and the documentary

evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the

claimants failed to prove that the driver of the offending

vehicle was negligent. The Tribunal disbelieved the

evidence of PW.2, since he did not possess anything to

show t