) Smt.A.S.Savitha vs ) The M.D. Of N.E.K.R.T.C on 27 April, 2022
29) 2009 ACJ 2600 (Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs
Chennappa Shettigar and others), wherein the High Court of
Karnataka has held as under:-
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.49 seconds)Mr Devaraju T vs The United India Insurance Company Ltd on 19 December, 2013
In Chennappa Shettigar's case (supra), a tempo hit
the parked truck in the mid night and the passenger in the
tempo sustained fatal injuries. The liability was fastened on
the offending vehicle to the extent of 50%.
Mr.Sathyprasad vs The Manager on 29 July, 2016
23. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 during
the course of arguments has relied upon the ruling
reported in 2009 ACJ 2600 in between Oriental
Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Chennappa Shettigar and
others, which reads like thus;
Prathibha Ganganalli vs Narayan on 11 November, 2024
2. 2009 ACJ 2600, between Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs.
Channappa Shettigar and Others.
The Divisional Manager vs Sharda W/O Sharnappa Pujari Ors on 16 September, 2020
In Channappa Shettigar's case the facts
disclose that it was a claim petition filed under Section
163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short
'M.V.Act') and negligence has no bearing in a claim for
compensation filed under the said provision of law.
Moreover, it was a collision of Tempo Trax against a
parked lorry.
The New India Assurance Co Ltd., vs Basappa Reddy Huchannavar on 25 March, 2013
5. The Tribunal on critical analysis of evidence of
driver of lorry has held that indicator lamps were not
burning and he had not taken precaution to indicate
the presence of stationary lorry on the road. The
Tribunal following the decision of this Court reported
in 2009 ACJ 2600 (KARNATAKA) (Oriental Insurance
Co. Ltd. vs. Chennappa Shettigar and others) has held
that driver of Scorpio Jeep bearing No.MH-19-AE-
1188, as well as driver of lorry bearing No.KA-26-4103
were equally negligent for the cause of accident. The
above facts established from evidence on record would
justify the findings of Tribunal. Therefore, the
contention of learned counsel for insurance company
that driver of Scorpio jeep bearing No.MH-19-AE-1188
was guilty of absolute negligence and driver of lorry
bearing No.KA-26-4103 had taken all precautions to
indicate presence of a stationary lorry on road, cannot
be accepted. In the circumstances, there are no
reasons to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal.
Shasheeda Begum W/O Late Riyaz vs G.Narasimharao S/O Venkatrao on 2 September, 2014
In support of his case he relies
on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in
2009 (3) KCCR 1575 in the case of ORIENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED., BANGALORE vs. CHENNAPPA
SHETTIGAR AND OTHERS with reference to paragraph 3 to
contend that since there was no indicator on the truck to
show that the truck was parked, there was negligence on
the part of the driver of the truck.
The Divisional Manager vs Smt Gouramma W/O Jaganath Muralimath on 10 August, 2017
In Oriental Insurance Co, Ltd., Vs.
Chennappa Shettigar & Ors, reported in IV (2009) ACC
406 (DB). While considering the appeal arisen out of a
claim petition filed under section 163A, 126 of M.V.Act,
1988 a Division Bench of this Court was pleased to
observe that, apportion of liability fixed by the Tribunal in
the ratio 50:50 % on the ground of contributory negligence
was justified.
Smt.Iramma W/O Bhimangouda Patil vs Sri.Surendra on 31 August, 2017
In the second judgment in Oriental Insurance
Company Limited, Bangalore Vs. Channappa
Shettigar and Others reported in 2009(3) Kar.L.J.267
(DB), after appreciating the materials placed before it, the
Court observed at paragraph 10 as below:
Radhabai Prashant Naik vs R. Amijabi Raheem Khan Pathan on 25 October, 2017
12. As could be seen from the records, the
appellants-claimants have produced Ex.P-1-certified
copy of FIR and complaint, Ex.P-2-certified copy of
charge sheet, Ex.P-3, certified copy of spot panchanama
and Ex.P-4 certified copy of post mortem report. The
respondents have examined the driver of the lorry as
RW-1 who had deposed the fact that on 14.02.2009
when he was driving the lorry from Mangalore to
Jamkhandi, at about 9.00 p.m. he had parked his truck
12
on the extreme left side of the Highway near Ajjikatta at
Ankola in order to visit his house and the parking lights
of the truck were on and in spite of the same, the car
collided with the lorry and as such the accident has
taken place because of the rash and negligent act of the
driver of the car. The evidence of RW-1 has not been
accepted by the Tribunal and has come to the
conclusion that both the drivers, of the car as well as
the truck have contributed to the alleged accident and
are negligent to an extent of 50% each. The Division
Bench decision of this Court relied on by the learned
counsel for the insurer in the case of Oriental
Insurance Company Limited vs. Chennappa
Shettigar and Ors. reported in IV(2009) ACC 406 (DB)
clearly goes to show that by assessing the evidence, the
Tribunal, if it has come to the conclusion to the effect
that the ratio of liability is 50:50 then, under such
circumstances, the same is justifiable. Though the
learned counsel for the appellant contended that the
13
material evidence is not going to substantiate the said
contention but in my considered view, the Tribunal,
after taking into consideration the criminal records and
the evidence adduced by RW-1, has come to a right and
just conclusion. In this behalf, the findings which has
been given by the Tribunal is liable to be affirmed.