&

AWARD

DATED:16.09.2014,

PASSED

IN

MVC.NO.576/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST

TRACK

COURT-II,

AND

MEMBER

ADDL.

MACT.,

BELGAUM,

DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED U/S.166 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,

S.G.PANDIT, J. THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The appellants are before this Court being aggrieved

by the dismissal of claim petition i.e. MVC No.576/2014 by

the Fast Track Court II and Addl. MACT, Belagavi, (for

short ‘the tribunal’) filed under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988.

Heard Sri. Vitthal S.Teli, learned counsel for the

appellants and Sri. Shivakumar S. Badawadagi, learned

- 3 -

counsel for the respondent-corporation. Perused the

appeal memo as well the tribunal records.

The facts of the case are that, the appellants

are wife, children and father of the deceased Shivarudra

Langote, who died in a road traffic accident involving

KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-25/F2736 and

Maruti car bearing registration No.KA-25/N5516. On

16.07.2023, when the deceased was proceeding from

Dharwad to Hubballi in his car, the accident took place

between KSRTC bus and the car which is driven by the

deceased. Due to the injuries sustained by the deceased,

he died on the spot. The Conductor of the KSRTC bus

lodged complaint to the police with regard to the accident.

Later, the claimants i.e. the legal heirs of the

deceased Shivarudra Langote filed claim petition under

Section 166 of the M.V.Act, 1988, seeking compensation

for the death of the deceased Shivarudra Langote, who

was

working

as a

Lecturer

and

was

receiving a

consolidated salary of Rs.31,000/- per month.

- 4 -

The respondent-NWKRTC appeared and filed its

objections and denied the averments of the claim petition

and in its objections, it was specifically stated that, the

accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving

of the driver of the Maruti car. It is also stated that, the

deceased lost control over the vehicle and went to the

wrong side of the road and dashed to the on coming

NWKRTC bus.

6.

The wife of the deceased examined herself as

P.W.1 and one Kallangouda A Patil, was examined as

P.W.2 and Jagadish M. Shetter, was examined as P.W.3,

apart from examining three witnesses, claimants marked

documents from Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.18. The respondent-

NWKRTC examined one Mr. Kuberappa B. Harti as R.W.1

and got marked documents at Ex.R1 to Ex.R.3.

7.

On appreciation of the materials on record the

tribunal by its Judgment and award dated 16.09.2014

dismissed the claim petition of the claimants on the

ground that, the accident took place solely due to the

- 5 -

negligent driving of the driver of the car i.e. deceased

Shivarudra Langote.

8.

Learned counsel Sri. Vitthal S. Teli, would

submit that, only on the ground that the complaint is filed

by the conductor of the bus and the charge-sheet is filed

against the deceased, the tribunal could not have come to

the conclusion that, the accident took place solely due to

the negligence of the deceased. Learned counsel would

submit that, the sketch and photographs even though

shows that the car had moved to the wrong side and

dashed to the bus, placing reliance only on the sketch is

wholly erroneous.

9.

Learned counsel would further submit that,

P.W.2 is an eyewitness and the tribunal has failed to

appreciate the evidence of P.W.2. Learned counsel would

place reliance on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court

in the case of Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance

Company Limited and others, reported in (2015) 5

SCC 656 to contend that the tribunal could not have

- 6 -

placed reliance on the sketch and based on the record

ought to have come to the conclusion that, it is a case of

contributory negligence, but the tribunal erroneously

dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the

deceased was solely responsible for occurrence of the

accident.

10. Sri.

Shivakumar

S.

Badawadagi,

learned

counsel appearing for the respondent-NWKRTC supports

the Judgment and aw