Karnataka High Court
Salahuddin Shakir vs The Divisional Controller on 30 August, 2010
Author: Jawad Rahim
Bench: Jawad Rahim
IN THE HIGH coupcr as KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE Dated this the 30"" day of August, 20104:"w.,:'j<«.._f,_ BEFORE THE HONBLE MR.3usT:cE...JAwA;;ii§A:¥%:'_:M°" MFA.No.11121/2QQ:5.(Mi/)«'e»._' Between: Saiahuddin Shakir, S/0 Shafi Ur Rehman," 34 years, ._ Residing at 1392, R.C. Road,',"" Mominabad, " L ., Hassan. ...APPELLANT And: 1. TheDivisionélAV,'Cn:n':»fni.Ier _ _K.S.RV.T;'C,_|%%assan',' * _ 2.3, shahabu&d'ier.----~-raasir, S/,0 .S"n.afi Ur Rehman, -- "Mfi,.J'%0'f'; " , H_as'sa_n. 3. fifhe Manager Orientai Insurance Co., 2"" Floor, S.V.Ni|aya, BM. Road, Hassan. ...RESPONDENTS
&;Zy IQ (By Shri. G. Shankar Goud, Advocate for 1"-2.1, Respondent--2 Served, Sri. C, Shankar Reddy, Advocate for Respndent No.3)
--o--o--o--
This MFA is fited under Se_c:tior1_173(i')""o.tV»the,4_'E§?iVotot Vehicies Act against the judg:=.r1ner_itc..fi*arid_1aiw-afdfdated 20.07.2006, Dassed by the .Cour't'..,o¥=.the Midlitionaiij ifjivwiifi Judge (Sr.Dn) & Additional Accident-..Ci'aifhsuTribuna|,"
Hassan, in MVC N0.1864/2001.u('QEd".E§lO.42'1/.Q1)_,:;5raying to can for records and etc} 1 This MFA. comivng-on 'foAr;.s»Ac'hjiss1i.o'fi this day, the Court deiiveijed";iHe foi--.|oWirifJ: ~ ' ' ' ' eiaimant questioning the judgment"*--«.Vd% -a1f1d__ iaev.i}4ard dated L 20.7.2006 in 1_s64%/oiigioiid No.42}/01} on the file of the Accident Claims Tribunal, Hassan.
A 2; appeal is posted for admission after notice to respondent--Insurance Company.
3. The facts in brief relevant for consideration are: the appellant sought for Compensation the injuries suffered by him on the groui*1dv 10.1.2000 at 11.30 a.m., while he-~w.:isA ';§':11i'5fi_'_withl'i one Abdul Shaku on the motor':'eyele' 7982 to go over from Arelaallipto."Saka.leshapu1'a: the".
Karnataka State Road Corp'oratior1 bus bearing No.KA--13, first respondent recklessly and near Wattehalli. the vehicles. Due to i1n:paet;' and he was treated at -- :"*'3al{al€Sh apura, S.C . Hospital, Hassan and Mangalore, as inpatient for A2:é1l£1ays at..'thell0ost'of Rs.1,00,000/w. He claimed to be coffee plantation earning Rs.7,00,000/-- per acre .afr1tl sought Compensation. it was resisted by the Insurance Company.
(}f2/
4. The claimant placed actionable wrong on the driver of the Karnataka State Road Corporation bus. During the trial, resisted the claim mainly on it appellant who Was negligent and _ the accident. However, as.._vp'tl3.e driver' was"
prosecuted for rash learned Member of the tithe judgment rendered .ca.\. the manner in which the revealed negligence on the riding the motorcycle as also 'finding is questioned by the appellant this n--
' p.The'Vlearned counsel for the appellant would in the police investigation the driver of the bus responsible for the accident and he was Approsecyuted. The Tribunal has seriously erred in holding appeilant responsible for contributory negligence and deducting 50% of the amount of compensation awarded. She has assertively contended actionable wrong could be fastened on it is due to the rash and negligent driver. the Vehicle collided.
6. Per contra, the_41eamAed-- counsel' 'for': thefi Karnataka State Road Transport Colrploration has supported the findingof the
7. I haye examined I1'iaterial'l"evidence made availablel. tit "'no't,:'in disptite that the bus and motorcycle in opposite direction. It is seen. _froxnl"the enarrdation of the appellant that the road pot holes.ll""When the bus reached Arehally, the :reached the said spot and the motorcycle after on the pot hole skidded and he fell and the which was coming from opposite direction
--..hpaslsed over the rear whee} of the motorcycle. This is = ....the only reason for holding the bus driver responsible. 6 But a close scrutiny shows it is quite possible that the bus has run over the rear wheel of the motorcycle"'«only after the motorcycle had fallen. Therefore----tl:'a.evcausohoff the injuries was not due to-"they motorcycle but due to the f'thef":Aoad appellant. Infact, the Karnataka State'RoadVVf'Tr'ansport'V' Corporation could haye been absolvecl of its liability. The appellant the claim against the of However, these are not * wijlherefore, I do not see any necess'i'ty'tox.:gov The question raised in to contributory negligence.
I dognot ffindv the Tribunal has erred in holding the V' .apj§.e{lla.1it responsiblel for contributory negligence of 50% an_dVVb_a_sis deducting compensation fixed by it at Even otherwise, I have examined the aWard.vV,_.f;I'he claimant had sustained fracture of shaft of ' .,1eft femur with multiple lacerated wound. Rs.30,000/-- it ..,.ayvarded towards pain and suffering is Wholly justified. The medical expenses of Rs.35,000/-- is also__quite reasonable. Rs.5,000/-- awarded towards i1i"c.i"de:n--tal expenses virtually satisfies his claim. Loss-do-f and discomfort at Rs. 10.000/- Jltproperyyl eyidencell of the doctor itself is that the the extent of 10%. There lis...iib.so1u'tely no "evidvencel that"
because of physical disability'; appellant'-has lost any income. His own coffee planter and earning of coffee from the estate; disability has no "derives from the coffee plantation. entitled to any amount towards of'; income due to disability. But the "has llaiztfarded Rs.1,42,IE30/--. However. by of the total assessment of Rs.2,22, 160/ -- t,11.g=;! has virtually granted Rs. 1,1 1,080/-- which itself" islmore. The actual entitlement of the claimant
-..fwou'ld be around Rs.86,000/--. For the reasons stated, I do not find any reason to interfere with the award or to enhance the compensation.
8. The appeai is dismissed.
*aib/-.