North West Karnataka Road Transport ... vs Smt Parvati W/O Guralingappa Kumbar on 5 October, 2010

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

North West Karnataka Road Transport ... vs Smt Parvati W/O Guralingappa Kumbar on 5 October, 2010

Bench: V Jagannathan

BETWEEN:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

DATED THIS THE 5m DAY or OCTOBER,   A' 

BEFORE  _ . u
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE1 f»wr:s.c;A,r\::§i;%:ff:>§}%§r»N'"  
M.F.A. N0.1792/2iZ§(}6;_{MV} '=,. "   4' '
ctv/W «  "
MFA. cRoB;--v.1:"44/zdﬁzt ' - V

  _:'II"~i"-3\e_IFA. "Ne. 1,2392/2003

North West Karnataka Roardvih   '
Transport C0rpQraf.ie.n,   _  - 
Central Office; §30k§1}RQad.   "   

Hubli. By itsgivialnagirijg Direpieer.  V V

: Appellant

(By Shri,  1  'Ar1x<QQa?riVe)

AND:

I.

2..

Smt. PaVr\z_2_1ti,v _ . _ 
W,/V Guraiir;ga;2p_r>ar K.r1rf'zha1:

Agséd about 46 Vyéears,
CCC: B:.1siness, R;/"U'."N€ar DCC Bank,

.' :'S1f1oEapz.;1'--R°@.ad, KC. Nagar, Bijapurr

S521 J€:{éi_p_pa~ V;'Si91ivappa Kumbar,
'Agéd abérzi 60 years,

QCCi R€'Li;"éd Servicé mar:
(Co0}.iéi;., R/0, Flai No.36§

V ~ Sholapur Road' KC. Nagarr Bijapurz

r Tixé Branch Manage}:
E Tbs Oréeniai Ir:suran<:€
7 Cempzmy', SS F<>ré; Rrraﬁ. 3391,22".

: Eéiesprrrrdezits



to

(By Shri. SS. Mamadapur for Shri. Ashe}: R. Kalyan
Shetty, Advocate for R E,
Shri. Veeresh B. Paii}, Advocate for Rail)
Shri. RN'. Nadageuda, Advocate for R3)

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is Sedﬁiddnee 
173(1) Of the Motor Vehicle Act against the eTu"dgmen_tj.a13d '

Award dated 14.09.2005 passed in1Mve,N;:s."333/:a_oa«:;.._ecn,Ame
file of the H Additional District Judge and Member, E\«'IPg<;2TF¥'i!.I,

Bijapur, awarding eomper1saiiQ:1_ of Rs;4,?«2,50Q,;*V«4 .with ir}§teresiQ

at the rate of 6% per annum.

BETWEEN:

Smt. Parvathi, V  ., '
W/0. Guralingappa Kumbarg. V
Aged 48 years, Ocrz: Nil,  . 

R/0. Near BDC_CBa11k,  Z,    j'
Solapur, Road,   : C_m:ss'ObjeVctor
(By sm. ss...VMaﬁ:ga§1u'r;égéméaie)  
1 . Divisizt;-nal. CqC>n.t:r'(}:T1_ee1fd;' ~ ..  . 4  
Nerth W'est*Kar":r:at'a ka Read
Transport'"C0i"pQf;1ti0.:1, 'Bijapur.

 *  3fi:f:~Je.:appa S}{i\%'ap--'pa Kumbar,

V « Age-7:1 ab0gfaéL5 years,
.=Oce; GQC»1ies,'R/0. Flat No.36,

 . Slgolapﬁrv. KC. Nagar, Bijapur.

3.  Br_2;f1'e};; 'Manager,
 C)--:*ier':i'a1 Insurance
Compaltzy, SS. Fort Road, Bijpur. : Respondents

A ve$'f:ri, Subhash Maﬂapur. Adxnaeate for R1 'Siifi. Veeresh B. Paﬁi, Advocate for R~2 g Shris RV. Nadagoudae Advecaie fer R-3} "IN MFA. 'Cm.-::cB;:v;;1z1'}V:1/2007 3 This Miseeiianeeus First Appeal Cress Objection in MFA1792/2006 filed under Order~41, Ru1e~22 CFC agai-ﬁst the Judgment and Award dated 14.09.2005 passed inV_1\Lri.\_?C',.No. 333/2004 on amzﬁkzgtthezxzeknuonaltmsuen Judge and Member, MACTJ11, Bijapur, awarding eomp;e'f1sa'ti.Q'r:« ;_. ef Rs.4,'?2,500/~ with interest at the rate of 6% p:*:f"at1nVuni1 seeking enhancement of compensation.

These MFA and MFA Cress~O1hjeet1eI1V ate":

ﬁnai hearing, this day, the Court delivetedthe 1"0.1e1ve:.x:11;g: ». JUDGM§§:h"--

Heard both sides respeet"L'ef 'the cross- objection. K 1' V 11

2. The counsel Shri. Subhash Karnataka State Road '1' 'i's~that, the MACT erred in finding thfadlt of the KSRTO, for the accident oeeidrfed 17.01.2004 on Ja.ma1:haI1di-- nearvv---Kumbar Halla village, It is further '_df;:the 1e-armed counsel for the appellant that, asdthe metetegéele a1so inveslved in the accident and as there were:. no visible damages Caused to both the vehieies, be seen from the repdrt of the Motor Vehie1e sf 4 Inspector: the Tribunal ought not to have put blame entirely on the driver of the KSR'i'C., bus.

3. On the other hand, Shrii RV. Na'ti_agot.rci'a; {ﬁfe learned counsel for the insuranee'"eo'm_oa..ny;«arguewdthat, though the reasoning given by the'Tribnna1.ii_in"ie.s1iVe.:.Noé;,L 1 & 2 given an indication that--;.reti1e accident _"'I..1ac':i: oeeurred solely on account ofraeh of the KSR'I'C., bus by its driver, the liability, the insurance to pay the Compensation and as such, the said finding tbeﬂjtistified in law, because no fau1tV'A'«veasV rider of the motorcycle. Even award. or the'-TribU.riai is silent as to what is the ';~;»m;i«t§r hegiigenee hiiihbe apportioned on the rider of the niotvoreyeiéewaiidf-the driver of the bus. airing note of the above submissions and the having heid that, the driver of the KSRTC1, bus rash and negligent in driving the vehieie, this court 5 was unable to comprehend, the ultimate View taken by the Tribunal holding that? the insurer of the m0tor;?ye'i-eddwas also Iiabie to pay Compensation, inasmuch_.2§__s,"it.'.1'te_friot clear from the judgment of the learned Prtjeidirtggtﬁffieer the Tribunal who has not even apj;?gert'forzed'tt»th'e pereeiﬁztdéige of negligence between the drii}e1<.Vpf the rider of . L' the motorcycle. In these going further on merits of the" for remand to apportion the driver of the bus and the«--1*td4e1:::.:etVH3393, 1 pass the foﬂowing: :1 ' . »A _ .

:apV;§dé ua1'ﬁ';%..:::$xr1«§;,§:tt'r\r§."179:2/2005 filed by the NEKSRT The impugned Judgment and .--'w.'awa1fd§'t:. ifsdeet aeidet ____ The matter is remanded to the .7._T1'ibunai.__toiefiamine the matter afresh on the issue ef cohtrihutertrri 'j;_1e'gEigence or: the part ef the driver ef the bus 'and rtderef the motoreyetet In the event if the Tribunal the eenetusien that both the driver of the bus rider ef the metereyele are at fault, the Tribunal shah fie ",4 apportion the negligence between them in at1eordar'1--ee'.}if§th the €Vid€DC€ on record and the liability point. The Tribunal aleo re~de-t-;e'r1nine~'_4th_e'qtigntvtxjnef ' compensation payable to the"'.VcE1ai'rnar1'tS '~.a§te:f:'"'~._re+_ appreciation of the evidence. -..ji7}:e T rib__u11a1"vsh:i1'}"'diepese"

of the case within three rnonthe froth'-»t_he C1aate..Q.fVreceipt of Copy of this judgment. -are at liberty to adduce fresh Contentions are kept open to be Lf.I'g'¥f*';'d ri'hu:na1_.» In:-Viéxtz of ef the Judgment and award passed byTrtht_1na,1"a.r£d the matter being remanded to .~__the _*"'§Crthuna1 fO}.'., ____ fresh consideration, MFA. Crab.

by the claimants do not survive fer eoneiéierettifon fer the present and the same is accordingly *Vdisp(;'sed"'VQf..' Séféé 3U§§E VJJ:

ORDER ON BEING SPOKEN TO... ' - "

This appeal was heard by this;.lC0iirt 05.10.2010 M.F.A. N0. 1792_;-aside'-' ~ ever; the judgment was dictated,_ Latlerjeln learned Ae'0uns.el'°E:1ri"'r S S Mamadapur made submissiergthat, as tiled by the Insurance CompaI1y""V2.{as albleviferi by-._a Divisiori Bench of this Court and liability xvasbltit the the mater has to be heard ..a;jai1'-L .

2. Cohsec;3_t1erii_- the made, the matter is listed todagz the matter was taken up for hearir1g.'l S1."§vH$ubl1aSh Mallapur for the KSRTC maijxe" liability is on KSRTC and the Divisie.-:1.Beneh._alse' mas taker; the very same View while 'l V. allrewiinag appeal fi'1';%--;4':i' by the Insurance Company and having D_ilux_%.';sic:>11 Bench decision in WP N0.lO298/O6 ee1ipl_eli wj.:ii"':g.ii5A 3601/O8 elated :26.8.2008§ i am of the View . that the"a}:ﬁ;leal filecl by the KSRTC will have to be clisrmssecl as is on the KSRTQ therefore question elf insurance K ..__"'3Cerhpar'iy' being liable {lees net; arise. h V' °2.2,5§.f20{:>'.,/-3- ..

3. As far as the Cross objeeteienee filed by 'fh'e:-VIVe¥éVin1'gnt'.132' concerned, MAC'? awarded ".4,72.5:()Q/Lash the grievance ef the CFCSS objeet€:'>r_is that? ineenze vgasVVt,aken 21:2 V 315.000/-- per annum which Having yggard to the above S1\W--{;.1.V:§'55i(;'n being put at 80% by the dOCIOIT~fQI1OVV:1iﬁgA;h:€ iaflche left'; leg above the knee po1i_iV<:3_.1:f1', income could have b€€I1 takfffl Even as a housewife and hf future earning capacity amount as against 11,44,000/e given A. --b.y the ..fcvri'bu"na.lh; Thus the enhancement will be * .. fl. _That.uainQunt will Carry interest at 6%. Cross objection {he extent if the abave enhancement.

A 5. Liabihiy is on the KSRTC. gégw geéee

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court