IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.984 OF 2010 (MV) BETWEEN:
1. LAKKAMMA @ LAKSHMIDEVI WIFE OF LATE DEVENDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
2. KUMARI KAVITHA DAUGHTER OF LATE DEVENDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS.
3. KUMARI GEETHA DAUGHTER OF LATE DEVENDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS.
4. SHIVAMURTHY SON OF LATE DEVENDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS.
5. SMT. RATHNAMMA WIFE OF LATE DEVENDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.
ALL ARE RESIDENT OF TARALUBALU NAGAR (6TH MILE STONE) DAVANAGERE TALUK. DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
... APPELLANTS (BY SRI MANJUNATHA PATTANASHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. INDRAJITH KOUR WIFE OF NOT KNOWN, IMRAN NAGAR, SILVAS ROAD, BULSAR POST AND TALUK AND DISTRICT, OWNER OF THE VEHICLE BEARING NO.GJ.14X508.
2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED D.N.ROAD, FORT MUMBAI, POLICY NO.3366 OF 2000 VALID UPTO 30-11-1999 TO 29-11-2000.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI A. N. KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH, VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 16/06/2015) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.9.2009 PASSED IN MVC NO.12 OF 2003 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) AND MACT-IV, DAVANGERE, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
***** THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The case of the appellant is that on 30-8-2000 at about 9.00 p.m. the deceased was going on his motor cycle bearing No.KA-17 6361 from Harihar to Tharalabalu. When he was near 6th Mile stone, he was unable to see a tanker bearing No.GJ 15 X 508 parked on the Highway without proper signals for attending the repair works and the deceased dashed against the vehicle. The deceased died on the spot. As a consequence, his wife, children and mother filed a claim petition before the Tribunal. By the impugned order, the claim petition is dismissed. Hence, this appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the order of the Tribunal is erroneous and liable to be interfered with, as the Tribunal has failed to consider the evidence and material on record. The same is disputed by the respondent.
3. On hearing learned counsels, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The material would indicate that the deceased was absolutely negligent while riding his two-wheeler. In fact on a criminal case being filed, charge sheet was filed against the deceased. So far as the post-mortem report in terms of Ex.P-6 and the spot Mahazar in terms of Ex.P-4 are concerned, the same does not support the case of appellants. Therefore, the charge sheet would indicate that it was the deceased who was negligent and responsible for the accident. When the negligence is held to be by the deceased, the question of claiming any compensation would not arise for consideration. Therefore, we are of the view that the Tribunal was justified in passing the impugned order. We find no good ground to interfere with the same. The appeal being devoid of merit, is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE Rsk/-