1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 26^th DAY OF JULY 2019

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR.JUSTICE P.G.M. PATIL

MFA NO.23054/2009 (MV)

BETWEEN:

NAGARAJ S/O.MAHADEVAPPA GANIGER,

AGE: 21 YEARS, STUDENT,

R/O.HOSUR, TQ. SAUNDATTI,

DIST. BELGAUM.

... APPELLANT

(By SRI. HANAMANT R LATUR, ADV.)

AND:

THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER,

NWKRTC, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, BELGAUM.

... RESPONDENT

(By SRI. M.K.SOUDAGAR, ADV.)

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

JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:21-08-2009 PASSED IN

MVC.NO.387/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT

BAILHONGAL,

REJECTING

THE

PETITION

FILED

U/SEC.166 OF IMV ACT.

RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON

: 15.07.2019.

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON

: 26.07.2019.

2

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND

RESERVED

FOR

ORDERS,

COMING

ON

FOR

PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE

COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The claimant being aggrieved by the judgment

dated 21.08.2009 passed in M.V.C.No.387/2007 by the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bailhongal has filed

this appeal.

2.

It is the case of the claimant before the Tribunal

that on 06.11.1999 at about 1930 hours on Bailhongal-

Hosur Road at a distance of 1 ½ k.m. from Chikkoppa

cross within the limits of Murgod Police Station when

the petitioner and his father were traveling by sitting in

a tractor-trailer No.KA-22/257-258 towards Bailhongal,

the driver of a Bus No.Ka-22/F-252 drove the same

negligently towards Matolli and dashed the same to the

tractor-trailer causing the accident, due to which the

minor petitioner sustained injuries. The petitioner was

3

aged about 11 years on the date of the accident and was

a student. His father got him treated at Dr.Mahantesh

Hospital, Bailhongal and also at KLES Hospital,

Belgaum by spending Rs.1,00,000/-. Inspite of better

treatment, the petitioner is suffering from permanent

physical disability. Therefore he filed the claim petition

under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming

compensation

against

the

NWKRTC

(for

short

8Corporation9).

3.

In

pursuance

of

the

notice,

respondent-

Corporation appeared before the Tribunal through its

counsel and filed written statement denying the

allegations regarding manner and mode of the accident,

nature and consequence of the injuries suffered by the

petitioner.

4.

He has further contended that negligence was on

the part of the tractor driver and the petition is bad for

non-joinder of owner and insurer of the tractor-trailer.

4

5.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the

Tribunal framed issues.

6.

The next friend of the minor-claimant was

examined as PW1 and two witnesses as Pw2 and 3 and

got marked 14 documents. Respondent has not

produced any oral or documentary evidence.

7.

The learned member of the Tribunal after hearing

both the parties dismissed the claim petition filed under

Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act.

8.

The claimant being aggrieved by the impugned

judgment has filed this appeal on the ground that the

Tribunal has erred in dismissing petition without

properly appreciating the evidence on record. The

respondent has not examined the driver of the bus and

the complaint was lodged by the driver of the bus and

charge-sheet was filed against the driver of the tractor

and trailer.

5

9.

The

petitioner

is

suffering

from

permanent

disability of 75%. However the Tribunal has assessed

the total compensation of Rs.1,54,400/-. Ultimately the

petition was dismissed.

10.

During the course of the appeal, the appellant has

filed I.A.No.1/2018 under Order VI Rule 17 read with

Section 151 of CPC seeking permission to amend the

claim petition in order to convert the petition filed under

Section 166 of M.V. Act to Section 163A of the Act and

also to read that <the accident in question occurred due

to the use of the bus owned by the respondent=.

11.

The appellant/claimant has sworn to the affidavit

in respect of