Karnataka High Court
Karnataka State Road vs P Prema on 19 September, 2018
Author: Krishna S Dixit
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
M.F.A. NO. 4601 OF 2017 (MV)
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
PUTTUR DIVISION,
MUKRAMPADY
DARBE P.O PUTTUR
DAKSHINA KANNADA -574202
ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF LAW OFFICR
... APPELLANT
(BY SMT. H R RENUKA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. P PREMA
W/O S PADMANABHA BHAT
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
2. SRI PADMANABHA BHAT
S/O LATE SADASHIVA BHAT
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
BOTH RESIDENT OF NO.2899/3A
OUTHOUSE,12/1
PAMPATHI ROAD
I MAIN, I CROSS,
SARASWATHIPURAM
MYSORE-570009
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SUMA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. V P KEDILAYA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)
2
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 25.02.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.168/2016 ON
THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND
MACT, KODAGU, MADIKERE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
RS. 4,57,839/-WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE
OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the management of the offending vehicle challenges the judgment and award dated 25.02.2017 made by the M.A.C.T. Kodagu at Madikere allowing M.V.C. No.168/2016 whereby a compensation of Rs.4,57,839/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum subject to the usual condition of bank deposit, has been awarded.
2. The brief facts of the case stated are :
a) In a vehicular accident involving collision between a Maruti Gypsy Car bearing Registration No. PB-04-C-
1695 and a K.S.R.T.C. bus bearing Registration No.KA-19- F-3217, an inmate of the said Gypsy, namely P.Sadan was fatally injured and died. In the claim petition by the L.Rs. of the deceased, the appellant-K.S.R.T.C. had filed the Written Statement resisting the claim. 3
b) To prove the claim, the parent one Mr.Padmanabha Bhat was examined as PW-1 and in his evidence nine documents came to be marked as per Ex.P-1 toP-9, which amongst others consisted of Police Papers, Postmortem Report and School Marks Card of the deceased. From the side of the appellant, one Mr. R.M.Neelajagi, the driver of the offending K.S.R.T.C. bus was examined as RW-1, however no document was marked in his evidence.
c) The M.A.C.T. after adverting to the pleadings of the parties and after appreciating the evidentiary material on record has made the impugned judgment and award that are put in challenge by the insurer.
3. The learned panel counsel for the appellant- K.S.R.T.C. vehemently contends that apparently the accident occurred because of collision between two vehicles and therefore the M.A.C.T. ought to have addressed the issue of composite negligence by allowing the application of the appellant seeking impleadment of the owner and insurer of the Gypsy in question. The counsel submits that since the said application for impleadment was rejected, the main issue of the case was not duly 4 addressed and this has resulted into prejudice to the appellant.
4. The learned panel counsel fairly submits that the whether it is a case for composite negligence or otherwise is not a concern for the claimants since the deceased was only an inmate of the Gypsy in question. The doctrine of composite negligence has a bearing upon the apportionment of the liability between the owners of the two vehicles or the respective insurers. Therefore she makes submission in justification of the award.
5. I have heard the learned panel counsel for the K.S.R.T.C. and the learned counsel for the claimants. I have perused the appeal papers.
6. The contention of the panel counsel for K.S.R.T.C. that the case involved the plea of contributory negligence and therefore for facilitating addressing of the said plea the insurer and the owner of the Gypsy in question ought to have been impleaded, has force. The pleadings of the parties and the evidentiary material on record strengthen the contention of the appellant-K.S.R.T.C. This exercise having not been done, the issue as to composite negligence requires consideration afresh by the M.A.C.T. itself, after impleading the said parties. 5
7. For addressing the issue of composite negligence, the award in favour of the claimants need not be set at naught. Keeping the award intact, the issue can be addressed by the M.A.C.T. after impleading the owner/insurer of the Maruti Gypsy in question.
8. In the above circumstances, the appeal succeeds in part; the impugned judgment and award are left intact so far as the claimants are concerned; the issue as to composite negligence between the K.S.R.T.C. bus in question and the Maruti Gypsy in question has to be adjudicated upon by the jurisdictional M.A.C.T. after impleading the owner/insurer of the Maruti Gypsy vehicle.
The M.A.C.T. shall permit the parties to produce necessary material and dispose of the issue of contributory negligence by making an appropriate judgment and award within a period of six months.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional M.A.C.T. for being disbursed as compensation to the claimants forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE Snb/