Advocates:
['V P KULKARNI', '', 'S N RAJENDRA', 'R', 'GOVT PLEADER', '']

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2014

BEFORE:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA

M.F.A NO.22923/2009 (MV)

C/W.

M.F.A. NO.7451/2009 (MV)

IN M.F.A NO.22923/2009 (MV)

BETWEEN

SRI.UDAY S/O TIMMA NAIK

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

OCC:BUSINESS CUM LORRY DRIVER

R/O SAKALBENA, AVERSA

ANKOLA –TQ, KARWAR.

…

APPELLANT

(BY SRI S.C. BHUTI FOR SRI V P KULKARNI, ADV.)

AND

1.

THE SECRETARY TO THE UNION

GOVT. OF INDIA

PARLIAMENTARY BUILDING

NEW DELHI

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

UTTARA KANNADA

2

KARWAR TQ, KARWAR

3.

COMMONDAR-IN-CHARHE

HQ FO(K), C/O NAVI OFFICE

NAVAL BASE, ARGA

KARWAR.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI S N RAJENDRA FOR R1 & R3

SMT. VEENA HEGDE, HCGP FOR R2)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:03-04-

2009 PASSED IN MVC NO.37/2008 ON THE FILE OF

THE MEMBER, II-ADDL. MACT, KARWAR PARTLY

ALLOWING

THE

CLAIM

PETITION

FOR

COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF

COMPENSATION.

******

M.F.A. NO.7451/2009 (MV)

BETWEEN

COMMONDER INCHARGE

HQ FO(K), C/O NAVI OFFICE

NAVAL BASE, ARGA POST

KARWAR.

... APPELLANT

(BY SRI S N RAJENDRA, ADV.)

3

AND

UDAYA TIMMA NAIK,

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

OCC: BUSINESS-CUM-LORRY DRIVER,

R/O.SAKALBENA AVERSA,

ANKOLA TALUK.

... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI S.C. BHUTI, FOR SRI V P KULKARNI, ADV.)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF THE M.V.ACT,

AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DATED: 03-

04-2009, PASSED IN MVC NO.37/2008, ON THE FILE

OF

THE

ADDL.CIVIL

JUDGE

(SR.DN)

KARWAR,

AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.4,19,046/- ALONG

WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE

DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.

*****

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,

THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

These two appeals arising out of a common

judgment and award passed in MVC No.37/2008 on the

file of the II Addl. MACT, Karwar. Therefore, both the

appeals are taken up together and a common judgment

is passed.

4

2. For the purpose of convenience, I would like to

refer the ranks of the parties as per their ranks before

the Tribunal.

3. The appellant in MFA No.22923/2009 is the

claimant before the Tribunal and the appellant in MFA

No.7451/2009 is the 3^rd respondent before the Tribunal.

4. The brief factual matrix of the case is that, the

claimant in MFA No.22923/2009 was the driver of a

lorry bearing Registration No.GDZ-5130 (hereinafter

referred to as ‘lorry’ for short). The claimant was

driving the said lorry on the ill-fated day i.e., on

25.7.2007. He was proceeding towards Karwar side.

When the lorry reached near Sankrubag Ghat road, the

driver of the vehicle belonging to the 3^rd respondent

bearing

Registration

No.04D-161615K

(hereinafter

5

referred to as ‘Navy Vehicle’ for short) drove the vehicle

in a rash and negligent manner with great speed coming

from the opposite direction, while negotiating a curve

saw oncoming vehicle and suddenly applied brake, due

to which the lorry turned around and thereby the hind

portion of the vehicle dashed to the front side of the

lorry. Due to the impact of the accident, the claimant

has sustained four fractures and four simple injuries.

After the accident, he was shifted initially to Arga Navy

Hospital, and thereafter to District Civil Hospital,

Karwar

and

then

to

KMC

Manipal

Hospital.

Immediately after the accident, one of the eye-witness to

the incident by name Namdev Naik S/o. Khemu Naik,

lodged FIR before the Karwar Rural Police Station. A

case was registered against the driver of the Navy

Vehicle and it is also not in dispute. Subsequently,

after due investigation, charge sheet has also been laid

6

against the driver of the Navy Vehicle. For having

sustained grievous injuries and simple injuries in the

accident, the claimant has approached the Claims

Tribunal seeking compensation.

5. The respondents have appeared before the

Tribunal and contested the proceedings and in fact

raised the question of liability on the ground that there

was a contributory negligence on the part of th