Karnataka High Court
Smt Parvathamma vs Sri Moinuddin on 2 February, 2012
Author: B.Sreenivase Gowda
Bench: B.Sreenivase Gowda
TN THE hIGH C Ut RI OF KARN.JAK
(4
IRCtTI BFN( II ii CUll' \RC
EsEF ORE
4 I TflVBLE MK .J1'& rici: 13 SRLEM
tifF
\ASh GOV¼ 1)A
DATEL) 1HIS fl-IF 2' D.Y OF FFI3RI 11W 201"
NWA 24flcQt 2(KL5 EM:'.)
13F. fl% EFJ%
I'Af!V\IIJAIT'Tk ' (3 •j'j T'% ( I
at. ii ;TARS (X c. HOT. %LPO 1)
SHT\ \K MAR St. hAsHRA1I
AGE 21 \FARSO(' SIUDI NV
S sHALSJA. 1) C) KAStTThAiH
kGE2(flEARS CC h'i ñv'
STRL1I " {\ST 1'%.tiTT
kG! BO
1
T .\"XR' tC 0.
'i\ L iiNOR K1FHEr,F' 1 '1) '-fl -TI', N
• I •'TbR kJ3T-jJ \
-.
' ' K-S' Ii
3J1 4
iji
R ,
f s
•
4 '•j• P
s Li '
i.'T - '. \jI. • r
k '1 t'i•j
Iwc
' '
• NJ
• - 'I 'C)• '. F
Nfl
-' " '' ' . sA
s • (
N/fl iEAR .1 4
\H
F RbI)Dl t'N P sI Ii LX R(n
SHAT (API R R( )AD. I)EODI RG•
DIS'I.: RMCHITR.
2 CFI NI) F 'SHft. S. fl H6TT IJfllf.f SB.
MAJoR. C)C( OWNER 011 ORRY
R'C) NO .1 14
q \SHOK 4
NA
1 .vC
.
(
RARII i
3 fl-IE I3RN( 11 M.1NAGFR
flRIENt4T. 1NSL'RANt'E rn. i..rn.
lifROt (,IT JfS BRl'%( 11 M N '( ER
RUC'1 (I R.
REST- OM)rN Is
'flY SRI SR(3J4 '. PAtTI .MflO( VIF FORR3)
ITTIs, if1%( ,.Z.• 3Mflt S IRS1 •MYF -U ' F
! ED
T S I 1 !
L -
MV ACT. AGAINSt THE 1 1L1)OMENT AND AWARD T)AFFD fi) 12 204)7
tASSEl) L MW' NO 274'2OO 0?' filE FILE
OF JIlL PRFSIDJ'SG
OFIIcLR Pk..'l IR4( K COT. it 111 MEMBrR. 'TV I
RU LI. PAR'1L
HOWING IHF'(I. JMILI'fliO fOR Al FN
S\')\ N)
FoR FM(NflMF\ OF' OMPFNSI't'N
I 'rs r
1
i1 .' 'F')i Ft?Si i 'PF.U i 'MN 'N nc :i' .T
' '
•ik.UIN' 'ijp (çT .jJ T,fJ IRE! T 0
L
1 1,W
.II'''
"
JUDGMENT
.'JLtII'%l) t'--tcl€irii ' hil i 'V ' rt tiC 'i ; dl ri 'hi t (1 Lr("ndnfy_ ligtrice a
2. For the sake ol .. on emetic c. tht aitie' are tefet red to is thcv arc relent"! ir, j tlw claim petition Inlurt ilit. I rihunal.
3 I hair In. irti th leana cI counsel appeal mt for the parties and peru'.ed the judgment and awa rd of tht Pithun ii.
4 As there 1' no dI%pule reszarthnt deatn
of iht
deceased Kaslimath 'lu u zi olw. nc it A IVS riot) t k
bearln,i registi ation No.KA 36/5180 &u mci loin bearing
wglst -atm i %k KA '3n 1431i cf jUar I tnt )I omi Iii 1(1'
a 'ardc I b he '1 nhunai the 'nmI' point renlL'n It r
c nsidc ration In 'his appc a. is.
11 IK 'l.a iii ' Frzbutzcj j'zLi'wd h
L
T
I duw
.J..a 'le ut lii 7L1 I S CC UT-c I due 0
'. '- 1,
eçj'ijei .(. 'itt zl I Ic duo t Ti
4rft uttJ his li ' 'na br fail ,. n( r,r' i,.. , r' 'j
üt clyr ti'l I' hilt
:) I . a. ntI s.c. ii•
1
C I 1'ji I tiis ( '.vn' in
,'
this lit
C..l 'Iii.t I (A I .i il r. 1 1
, ti' 1... • II J ' •a I r
St
4
contributed anything for the accident. The Tribunal has
committed an error in holding that the accident was occurred due to contributory ncgligence of 50% on the part of the deceased in driving his TVS motor bike and 50% on the part of the driver of the lorry.
6. Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurer submits driver did not poss ess an effective and valid driving licence as on the date of the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal has held the Insurer of lorry Is liable to pay 50% of compensation with a right to recover It from the owner of the lorry. Regarding cont ributory negligence he submits the deceased all of a sudden entered the main road in a rash and negligent manner without observing the traffic on the main mad and there fore. the Tribunal was Justified in holding that he has also cont ributed to the accident at 50%.
7. The Insurer of lorry has not preferred any appeal challenging the award of the Tribunal In directing them to pay Sr 9 5 5(Y)b of the compensation to the claimants and then recover it from the owner. Owner of the lorry has not preferred any appeal challenging the said finding of the Tribuna l on liability.
If that is so. this Court cannot Interfere with the said finding of the Tribunal on liability.
8. It Is not In dispute that the lorry was procee ding from Deodurga to Sirwar main road and the dec eased caine on his TVS motor bike from Arkera village cro ss mad to the aforesaid main road. If that Is so, there was a dut y cast upon him to enter the main road slowly and cautiou sly. However, considering the manner in which the acciden t was taken place, the Tribunal was not Justified in holdin g the deceased had also contributed for the accident to the exte nt of 50%.
Considering that the deceased was coming on TVS motor bike from cross road to main road and the driver of the lorry was proceeding on the main road and size of the vehicle involved in the accident It is Just and proper to hold that the driver of the lorry has contributed to the acc ident to the a 6 extent of 15 and the deecaed had contributed to alit &Weldt'flt to the C\tCflI o )5" OI(liiisZh flndinQ of the 1 Itunal on 11 c rq'hgr isin dllkd 9 1 tarn d o inst I appcaiint_ ma tht clairnuits fairI' submits quantum of cornpen'ation awarckcl by flu J ill unal Is Just and i easonable 10 TIM ulmp,'it'i A till 1e n'd flit (1 211 ' for he claimants that quantum of comptnsation awarded b's the rnbam'il Is just amid re.t--nnal'lt jq plzutd on tuord.
I 1. Aecom dint1 aT)pnl allew cc! in i.ai a afl(I the 11 n( i d tv it ) 1 a L tO I i' riodfi d mi5ot. t f n 1 irig c" itgIh.t'iit L' ii'] helci thai hit ( 'icieli £ ' ii r '0 t l 1li' t oritibi tor fleA h';c i .
tt it )( .i iii &t I ilit
1 I I'rr it / r fl ii Jd t 'I 131% ' 1% i 1
._1iha1:i% a' 'trn.a •rIiw
. Tn--i --l tnt • , I ni .,I I '1
r i. Ii 1 1 1 1 I
t 7
S
remaining 25% of the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal with upto date Interest within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. From whic h, 20% with proportionate interest is to be invested in Fixe d Deposit in the name of the first claimant who is wife of the deceased In any Nationalized bank/Scheduled Bank/Post Offic e for a period of 9 years with a right of option for the claim ant to renew It once In every 3 years and withdraw interest periodically. Remaining 5% with proportionate interest is ordered to be released in her favour.
No order as to costs.
sal N8