Karnataka High Court
R H Prakash vs Gurudeepsingh S/O Mangalsingh ... on 17 March, 2009
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, H.N.Nagamohan Das
in THE HIGH COURT 0:? KARHA'rM;L~:§;"" ' 1 ~{: r.- A'
cmcurr BENCH AT nnmwm. V
nssrmn THIS THE 171% DAY;:BF:1:fi¥SR€ii;.A29vO§' 'V i'
935333? .,
THE Hcrmm MR. .Jus'i*:c:Ex,L. nkafisfinfiwa
'_ M3 A
THE HOBPBLE am. ans:-fi_<'§3'?:?_ mas
ma.x%a.4s34;am Amy»,
3E;TWEEN:
1
5 .
$2 :ri:.:%PRA%{:A's§~;--V ' *
S;'€3'vvIE~i£fi"E'£ 29:33;-Mpg
sgascg :zI:,<::t5.S2;:1}:37"'B Y»--::ii';: ms
S§;}N§s.I'~§§.A " .. _
:3 R. ;-1. pgaxxsga -
_ ;s;'«3E;'2~§;:J:3;2
' _ 'ac: 8USiN«EST€i%.
' _;:e;<::.,§§sa.;~I<3E;~:;=;.§5;xLLz TALUKA I~§IRE'{UR
1' ~. A E318'? : CHI'?i§'ADUi?GA
V {:3} é}';RESv;E§BAB§;U S/O R H ?RAKASH
AGE: 'EYES MINOR' IQEP NATURAL M35'?-{ER
.. I GUAR'DIA§'\f SUNANDA
F435 0 §ANGENA§-{ALL} T£xLi}KA HEREYU R'
V' 5.3.13'? : CBETRADURGA
E MANJUNATH
310 R.H.PFEAIr<ZASH
AGE: 5 YES MINOR REP BY MOTHER
NA'I'E.§R£&L Gugmiaaxi szmawma
id}
2
RICE RANGENAHALLE TALUKA HIRIYUR
DIST : CHETRADURGA
HATE'? RUDRAPPA
S/O SHIVARUBRAPPA
A(3E:MAJOR
CJCECBUSINESS
R'/'O RANGENAHALLI 'TALUKA HIRIYUR
9137*: CHITRADURGA
RATNAMMA
w/0 HATTE RUDRAPPA
AGE:MAJ(I)R ,
OCC:BUSENESS " _ .
R/0 RANGENAHALLI TALUl{A,Hi~§2IYUR"' .
BEST': CHITRADURGA " «.
... AP?Ei3 LLANTS
(By Sri : R...K,T;<U'1.A%iAi'€;--r:::V8z. si'~*<z.;_ 1?<.iw.AQ.m1sH, AD\/3.
AND
1.
FOR'APPELLEsNTE}V'jVNo,1(ea; im (e:
APPE:L_,LAI€T N0;v1'{s1} '
§?i§.§)EEP§3i'N.¢i§§~{ V
--S;'*{i}:»_!x!}&Z%I€3iALSENC';E*i'AGE:M.¢.JOR
V « ,Qa::c'ga3$1":x;_EsS,
V. Rgavvmxs;-VBH1ARAT:TRANSPOHF SERVICE
V '«.T4G8;~V"€gEll€A"CHAMERS 4'I'}f DANA BUENEEDER
3 '1:a:::1'z*:'";'}+:«,ex1$.§:E BOMBAY OWNER <31? TRUCK
9:1 '
=?{iCY_ 5.295 3;
*z'H§3_N;1;w INDLA ASSURANQE (:0 am
n ; BY ITS REGIONAL GFFICER
UNITY BUILDING ANNEX
'~:~.:Iss:0N ROAD
E BANGLAGRE 2:?
T (ENSURER 95* VEHICLE MCY 2951;
THE NEW ENBEA ASSURANCE) CO LTB
BY ITS BRANCB MANAGER
3
HGLSKLKEEQE ROAD
CHYI'RAi3*i}RGA POLECY NO.3}6712Oi2OG5°?GC3
{INSURER OF' QTY 6163 CAT)
4. DUNBAPPA BADIGEE @ NAGAPPA
S/*0 DUNDAPPA BAIZHGER
AGE:MAJOR O{3C;D REVER
OF' 'I'FEUCK NO MCY 2961
R/'O C/O RESPONDENT N91,
awwm OF' TRUCK ; = _ " «..."«E%EiSPQi'E})EN"}'S 1 (By Sri, L.B.MANNODDAR,A£)V. FOR :e2 :xN1;:a_3 . . RESPONDENT No.4 IZ)'é3LE'I'E'1i)"sé_'./'(3/(13'1:_)'I': 2o.e;72o;;:3)_,_H was APPEAL 18 311,39 u/s,.z'*;*.'2§sf'L;:'; C3'F_MV z:Tc*m<:;;éa.::~:s':' THE} JUDGMENT AND AWARD a_A}T'EI3_:_ 2';?.1.2--f}{).{) F'ASSED us: MVC NO. $23/95 on THE FELE OF THE c_:3ii-1;'_=J§§*;.f}c}E, (SR.DN.}, 85 ADDL. rx,i2§cfi¥:?*.",=A1{i'{v;BLif :?A§§*3§i;2' ALQSWING Tm: CLAEM PETITION FOR c0Is.1APE-Nsz2TI<:n$é...AAL'% ' ' '1'H1S"A_PPE'.AL_€':(§M£§§;G ow FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, K.L.M}¢MII)'N£i'.'¥'_H'.J.;~ D'aL2'vERED THE mLLow;Nc;:
JUDGMEKT " _ 'I'his; is by the iega} representativfis of 011:: RH. ?rakas}':, ' Wha was tbs ewner of the car bearing N0. (EN 616 ' i*2'3'1.i5(:?fi~«_«vehic1e met with an accident due to heaé; on collision .___"" 'bé€waan the cm' and the truck beaxéng No. MCY 2961 and the u said accident occurztci néar Agadi cross, P:.m€~Banga1or<: Road near Hubli at 23% pm. In the: accident, the vshicic ef the g.
appefiants was compietely damaged. 'I'herefor€,_p~ petiticm was lodged in MVC N0.5?'3;'9:"S bcf'ox'€t_.--f%V}§§ €$"'»I¥'V:%:jiL;.:
Juége anti Addifionai Meter AccidenjtMC1a;'m3'' * . (for short the "I'ribuna1') contendiI1g:'t'hat.--£335 e"E'lK'3.I.E21id'(Z I71"t' an account of rash and negligeni of t1:V:éA' _§3:rf truck.
2. The Tribunal j ?§te..<:vi€ience let 311:1 by thfi patties held mat '_ 'fiéas also equally' I€SpOflSib:i€vfbr::v?hfi '£5'§é:;sé'».§j:'f ti1e:"vVz飧icicie:11t and the negligence has 1)t3€1'":l:L'--.s€l}'2':}'){)V}f'E:iQIZ.}.i.,".';(::Ii.~ ..-hetweeri the drivers caf the car anti Eh: " Agzitartiitiglg, {0WaI'(iS damage of the' car, 21 ..{j'(.)II13{.'§i<:5:'i*1S'-;f':5§;'§:2§i.}1{3L ofAV'R3;----.'.--'¢£'§;OGQj~ was awancied at: 90.4) pa. as adatt 0f 'E135 petitiaxz till the ciate of payment. {ha judgment and award dated 29.1.2000, ¢ C3316 gférsefxig agpm; is ffied.
N W6 have been} the Iearrzcd counse}. far all {ha parties. 3%
4. Theugh $CV€I'E1.1 grounds are urged cozmael for the appellants at the time of = , contends that the insurance comf;§2ny.. i:1fjv which is iater I'€3."}.11$b€I'Cd as Nd§6QS',f 95 =.V*.?ré:V;M:*-ax '.€J:;:a:i.~. ; P. Shankara Murthy, the cf claiming cumpensation on aeC0u.I::.'ig cf had filed a detailed written statcn':1:V:1§if_V the accident {>cc1zrzt:d on of truck driver and further conméfiiiéfl. fitj']:1Vt'=i'--:.:<:a':»1fI1p<:}:13a1ioIz has to be apportie;::1ed'" of the truck ané 1:1eg1igez::,%v,;t:_&c:'f htc» be assessad at 10% cmly. Ex.II)3 is wsafiitefi sta':g~':i2;:§£1t flied by the insurafice company Nx<3.(§08[.'9E':.«______Cont<~:11ciing that Ex.If§.3 has not been *_g:e11;s'$zig:1*c::i_'13y«_'I'1'ibuI;ai, the present appeai is flied by the file Court to modify the finding of the:
V .Tribufiei fégazd t0 the appofliienment of the negfigsnce " H " . b é::twt3§n tiié. driver of both the vehicles. V 5. Admittiidly, in 311 the ccntnect cases, the "<1-omprensafiion has been fixed on bath the insurance company. it is also no: in dispute ma: both tbs vehicles were igsumd with M/S New indzla Assuraxzca Company Iiabfiity has to be satisfied by the same negligence is apportisoncd between I fl::§ drJ_'=:«'.ie1*" "
vehicies in equal proporfion. HG1¥*.f:V€?{;",' T ii; matisfs ::i;*1 regard to the ciaitn mafia by t3i&'«.§ppéi1&ziis 1 owner of the car as thay are gei1:zgL4fi:w;$;'u.g.taiz1"a._IéS'é. ttifgan extent 01:' 48%;), if the finding of.._£§.%.c ~..g:;1e pfizsent (33% 3.3 taken into considazatiani
--.T}1e:: 1é§:a;j*:1:éd appearing for the parties does not dis§ute"~~*:j§x€ <";oii€:r:fifion.'i;rgVed by the iusurmcfi company im Mvc"._;fN¢.%3oaa/'igéi (aid N0. 608i{}§i) in the case of M. Though 'the said documcni: is marked as E3x.E33,.At};;é"T§ih§1:3;é1 has not given its censideratien to COI13.$i(§f:1"
V V' _ the a*fi"ecf..'_':oi-ifiie afimimsian mafia by the insurancfi company in §1¢ad§::3;g.; Tiiemfom, we are ef the opinizm that tbs: Trfbunafi _ «haS~+:~.a;mmittcd an error' iii agspmrfivning ths negligence squafiy VA hsfsveen tht: c1z*iiW:1*s of the two: vshicies. when the instiranca ~ company 31:3. a mnnectsd matter has aémitmd that tha car driver was mswnsible 03:11}; ':0 an axtent at 18%; and 90°/o was =51» 7 on account of mtgiigencze of the truck driver, W§:"'£§§'§Z epinion that the appeal has 3:0 be aflowed in es Ztiis; finding in regard. to the fixing the bath the vehicles in equal §ro:}h3Qrtioz':i;..A --Accoreiiag"fé negligence of the driver of the tube 'aegeeeeeciet 10%' and the Iizegligence of the d__1fiver'é3f haeviic assessed at 900/0.
'3. in tfie £;pi:;eai is 2§i1e'w'éei in part. in View of the fsxzding "'q:_v1ee.ti<3I1 of negligence, the appeilalfizs " enhanced compensation of ies.s,ec:e1~"'ve§:h.Vi1§£e:'c%s; p..-3. from the date of '€111: claim _ pefififiez the éiate: ef éeposit. On such depasit, the Tribunal sfiafi :$e £ea,sev '--~.the entire amount to the claimants as V vehicéfie.
eumfieflsefion awarded towarcis damage caused to the Sd/é.
Iudg"e Séii Fuflge