Karnataka High Court
Chand @ Chand Pasha S/O Hasan Sab vs The North-East Karnatka Road Transport ... on 14 September, 2017
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
(MATTER PERTAINING TO KALABURAGI BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
M.F.A. No.200185/2014 (MV)
BETWEEN:
CHAND @ CHAND PASHA
S/O HASAN SAB
AGED :28 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O YEDULLAH COLONY
RING ROAD
GULBARGA - 585 104 ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI V.N.MISKIN, ADVOCATE)
AND :
THE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TANSPORT
CORPORATION
THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE BY
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
YADAGIR DEPOT
YADAGIR - 585 210 ...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT.RATNA N. SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 03.07.2013 PASSED IN MVC
No.723/2010 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT., AT GULBARGA, PARTLY
2
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS THIS
DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is by the claimant in MVC No.723/2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kalaburagi. The claimant being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the said claim petition has come up in this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are as under:-
2.1 The claimant - Chand @ Chand Pasha said to be the driver of the auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-33/7342 has stated in his claim petition that on 12.05.2010 at about 4:30 p.m., while he was driving his auto rickshaw and proceeding from Yadgir to Wadgera village, near the railway bridge at lakshmi layout, Yadgir, he was hit by the bus bearing registration 3 No.KA.32/F.1413 belonging to the second respondent -
Corporation resulting in injuries to him. It is further stated that he was taken to Government hospital at Yadgir, where he was given initial treatment and subsequently, he was shifted to private hospital viz., P.G. Shah hospital, Gulbarga, where he was treated as an inpatient from 12.05.2010 to 24.05.2010. It is the contention of the claimant that the aforesaid accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing registration No.KA.32/F.1413 driven by its driver i.e., respondent No.1 and internally insured with the insurance company of the second respondent - Corporation. Hence, he sought for compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- from the respondents jointly and severally for the injuries sustained by him in the said accident.
2.2 In the proceedings before the Tribunal, the respondents entered appearance through their counsel. The first respondent did not file any written statement. The second respondent filed the written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition with regard to 4 age, occupation and earning of the claimant and also the fact that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing registration No.KA.32/F-1413 by its driver. It was contended that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA.33/7342 by the claimant and the petition was not maintainable as the owner and insurer of the auto rickshaw were not made parties to the petition. Hence, the claimant is not entitled to compensation. Accordingly, respondent No.2 sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
2.3 Based on the aforesaid pleadings and the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Tribunal framed issues. On behalf of the claimant, he examined himself as PW.1 and he got examined the Doctor as PW.2 and got marked documents, namely Exs.P1 to P16, which are in the form of police documents, wound certificate, medical bills, hospital bills pertaining to the treatment undergone by the claimant in Dr. P.G. Shah 5 hospital, etc. On behalf of the respondents, the driver of the bus involved in the accident was examined as RW.1.
2.4 The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the claimant and oral evidence of RW.1, the driver of the bus involved in the accident, allowed the claim petition in part by awarding compensation to the claimant in a sum of Rs.1,22,300/- payable with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit of the entire amount while holding that the second respondent - Corporation is liable to pay the said compensation with interest. The claimant being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, has come up in this appeal.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the respondent - Corporation. Perused the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence available on record with reference to the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and the grounds urged in the appeal memo. When the Police documents and other documents 6 produced and got marked by the claimant before the Tribunal are scrutinized meticulously, it is noticed that nowhere it is stated that the driver of the auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA.33/7342 i.e., the claimant (appellant herein) had valid driving licence at the relevant point of time. In fact, the said document was not produced either before the Police at the time of investigation or subsequently in the proceedings before the Tribunal. The said aspect of the matter is ignored by the Tribunal and despite non-production of valid driving licence by the claimant, the claim petition has been allowed by awarding compensation of Rs.1,22,300/- to the claimant as stated supra. However, this Court while considering the said aspect of the matter, by order dated 19.10.2016, had directed an enquiry to be conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Yadgir, in order to ascertain as to whether the claimant had valid driving licence as on the date of occurrence of the accident. Pursuant to the said order and the subsequent order of this Court dated 21.07.2017, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Yadgir, has 7 conducted investigation and submitted his report dated 31.07.2017, which clearly discloses that as on the date of occurrence of the accident i.e., 12.05.2010, the driver of the auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-33/7342, who is the claimant before the Tribunal, did not have valid driving licence.
4. It is pertinent to note that driving of motor vehicle without valid driving licence itself is an offence under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. When the claimant himself being tortfeasor in driving auto rickshaw without having valid driving licence, the question of considering his case for grant of compensation does not arise. Therefore, in the fact situation, though there is no appeal by the respondent - Corporation against the judgment impugned, this Court on its own hold that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, wherein, inter alia, the claimant (appellant herein) is awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.1,22,300/- with interest at 6% per annum, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 8
5. Accordingly, the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gulbarga, dated 03.07.2013 passed in MVC No.723/2010 is set aside. In the meanwhile, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the award amount is already satisfied by the respondent - Corporation. Hence, the respondent - Corporation is directed to initiate appropriate proceedings against the claimant - appellant herein to recover the compensation amount and interest, if paid by the respondent - Corporation, from him and in the event, the claimant (appellant herein) fails to deposit the entire amount, the respondent - Corporation is at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings for his arrest and sentence him to prison until he refunds the entire amount to the respondent - Corporation.
Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE sma