Karnataka High Court
Bangalore Metropolitan Transport ... vs Sri H.N.Govindaraju on 31 January, 2013
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF JANUARY 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
M.F.A.No.6621/2008 (MV)
BETWEEN:
Bangalore Metropolitan
Transport Corporation,
Central Office, K.H. Double Road,
Shanthinagar, Bangalore
By its Managing Director. ... Appellant
(By Sri.D. Vijaykumar, Advocate)
AND:
1.H.N. Govindaraju, 58 years
S/o.late Hanumanth Nayak
2.N.R.Rajalakshmi, 48 years
w/o.H.N.Govindaraju,
Both are R/o.No.356, 3rd Main
3rd Cross, Near Govt. School,
Kamalanagar
Bangalore-79. ... Respondents
(By Sri.Shripad V. Shastri, Advocate)
-.-.-
This Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the
M.V.Act against the judgment and award dated 7.1.2008
passed in MVC.No.6110/2006 on the file of XIX Additional
SCJ & Member, MACT, SCCH-17, awarding a
2
compensation of Rs.4,12,500/- with interest at 6% p.a.
from the date of petition till deposit.
This Appeal coming on for hearing this day, the
Court delivered the following :
JUDGMENT
The BMTC, who is respondent in MVC.No.6110/06 on the file MACT, Bangalore, has come up in this appeal impugning the judgment and award dated 29.1.2008 so far it pertains to fixing liability on them to pay the compensation for the death of G.Subramanya in a road traffic accident.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 11.8.2006 at about 8.30 p.m. when deceased G.Subramanya was riding motor cycle bearing No.KA-04- ED-4387 on 5th Cross near M.D.Block Railway Bridge, Malleshwaram, he lost control of his vehicle and hit the median. As a result of which he fell to the right side of the median, that is to say he fell on the wrong side of the road. At that time, the BMTC bus which was coming from the opposite direction, that is, keeping to the left side of the median, dashed against the deceased resulting in severe 3 injuries to the deceased, who later succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. Therefore, the parents of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 163A of M.V. Act seeking for compensation for the death of their son.
3. In the proceedings before the Tribunal, first claimant i.e. father of deceased adduced evidence as P.W.1 and produced in all nine documents namely FIR-Ex.P1, spot sketch-Ex.P2, spot mahazar-Ex.P3, copy of inquest mahazar-Ex.P4, P.M. Report-Ex.P5, SSLC marks card- Ex.P6, Admission receipt-Ex.P7, identity card-Ex.P8 and salary certificate-Ex.P9. On behalf of the respondent no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.
4. The Tribunal on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record proceeded to allow the claim petition awarding compensation to the claimants in a sum of Rs.4,12,500/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its deposit and fastened the liability on the respondent to pay the same. 4
5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the BMTC has preferred this appeal.
6. It is contended by the counsel for appellant that the accident in question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motor cycle, who after hitting the median fell to the right side of the road i.e. to his wrong side and came directly under the wheels of the BMTC bus which was proceedings on the proper side of the road which was meant for the vehicles moving in that particular direction. In that view of the matter, the accident is caused due to the negligence on the part of the deceased. When the deceased himself was negligent in causing the accident, the question of granting compensation either under Section 163A or under Section 166 of the M.V. Act does not arise.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondents- claimants tried to substantiate the findings of the Tribunal on the ground that when the claimant hit the median and fell to the right side of the road, there is negligence on the part the driver of the BMTC bus in not observing the 5 traffic rules properly and hitting against the deceased and thereby causing the accident. Section 163(A) being social legislation meant to help the victims of the accidents, the question of looking into the negligence on the part of the rider of motor cycle should not be there. When the accident is established, the claimant in the case of injury or the legal representatives of the deceased in case of death would be entitled to receive compensation as a matter of right.
8. After hearing arguments on behalf of appellant and respondents and on going through the documents available on record it is clearly seen that Ex.P2-Sketch and Ex.P3-spot mahazar clearly shows that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motor cycle. When the deceased himself is the tortfeaser the question of granting compensation for his own mistake does not arise. Though Section 163-A is the beneficial legislation it does not mean that tortfeaser also should be granted compensation under Section 163A, which is not the tenur or the intent under which the said 6 provision is included in the M.V.Act. In fact it is supported by the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY .VS. SINITHA AND OTHERS reported in 2012(2) SCC 356.
9. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the finding of the Tribunal in saddling the liability to pay compensation on the appellant-BMTC is erroneous and does not to stand to reason. Hence, the same requires to be set aside.
10. In the result, the appeal filed by the BMTC is allowed. Consequently, the impugned judgment and award dated 7.1.2008 passed in MVC.No.6110/06 on the file of the XIX Additional SCJ and MACT, Bangalore, is set aside.
Sd/-
JUDGE *alb/-.