1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 24^th DAY OF JANUARY 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A. PATIL

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.22689 of 2011 (MV)

BETWEEN

RAJENDRA S/O VENKATESA RANGAREJ

AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS &

OWNER OF QUALIS VEHICLE BEARING,

NO. KA-29/B 5151,

R/O NEAR SARNAIKS HOUSE, EXTENSION,

BAGALKOT.

... APPELLANT

(By Sri S B NAIK, ADV.)

AND

1.

YALLAPPA S/O BASAPPA KOLAKAR

AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: NIL,

2.

RAMESH S/O YALLAPPA KOLAKAR

AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,

3.

KUM. SUREKA D/O YALLAPPA KOLAKAR

AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,

4.

MAHANTESH S/O YALLAPPA KOLAKAR

AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,

ALL ARE R/O LOKAPUR, TQ: MUDHOL,

DIST. BAGALKOT.

... RESPONDENTS

(By Sri. SHIVARAJ P MUDHOL, ADV. FOR R1-R3. R4 SERVED)

2

MFA FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, AGAINST THE

JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:10-03-2011 PASSED IN MVC

NO.355/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT.NO.IX,

MUDHOL, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.3,37,000/-

WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM 06-05-2010 TO

TILL ITS DEPOSIT.

THIS

MFA

COMING

ON

FOR

ORDERS(ALREARDY

ADMITTED)

THIS

DAY,

THE

COURT,

DELIVERED

THE

FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The present appeal has been preferred by the owner of

the vehicle assailing the judgment and award dated 10^th

March 2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

IX, Mudhol, in MVC No.355 of 2007.

2.

Heard. The case is already admitted and is

listed for orders, with the consent of the learned counsel

appearing for the parties, the same is taken up for final

disposal.

3.

Brief facts of the case are that on 22.10.2006 at

about 5.00 am, the Kamalawwa-deceased and his relatives

were proceeding towards Kamalapur for attending the

funeral ceremony in a Qualis vehicle bearing registration No.

3

KA-29 B-5151. The driver of the said vehicle drove the same

rashly and negligently and when they reached near Mudhol-

Lokapur PWD road, the driver of the vehicle lost control and

the said vehicle capsized near the land of Hiremath near

Jiragal village. As a result of the same, the Kamalawwa

sustained grievous head injury and while shifting to

Government Hospital, Mudhol, she succumbed to the

injuries. It is contended that Kamalawwa was doing tailoring

work and was getting income of Rs.3,000/- per month. The

husband and the children filed a claim petition under

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming

compensation.

In pursuance of the notice, the respondent appeared

and filed written statement. By denying the contents of the

petition, he further contended that the respondent is

permanent resident of Bagalkot and the said vehicle is used

only for his personal works. There is no driver to the said

vehicle and the police and the petitioners in collusion with

each other have created a false case. On these grounds, he

prayed for dismissal of the petition.

On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal

framed the following issues:

4

1. Whether

petitioner

proves

that

on

22.10.2006

deceased Kamalawwa along with her relatives

proceed towards Lokapur in Qualis vehicle bearing

No.KA-29/B-5151 when they proceed on Mudhol-

Lokapur road the driver of the said vehicle drove the

same in rash and negligent manner and turn turtle the

said vehicle as a result Kamalawwa sustained

grievous head injuries and did on the way to the

hospital?

2. Whether petitioners prove the age and income of the

deceased?

3. Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation? If

so what extent and from whom?

4. What order or award?

In order to prove the case of the petitioners, petitioner

No.1 examined himself as Pw-2 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-

6. On behalf of the respondent, the respondent examined

himself as RW-1 but did not produce any documents.

After hearing the parties to the lis, the impugned

judgment and award came to be passed. Assailing the sam