IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.NO.7664 OF 2012 (MV) BETWEEN THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.44/45 LEO COMPLEX, DEVY’S BLDG RESIDENCY ROAD CROSS BENGALURU-560001.
REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY MANAGER AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE (BY SRI. E S INDIRESH, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SMT JABEEN TAJ W/O LATE SYED SADATH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 2. KUM ADEEBA SHABNAM D/O LATE SYED SADATH AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS BOTH R/O NO.7, NIRMALA BLOCK 11TH CROSS, WILLAM’S TOWN ...APPELLANT BENGALURU THE PETITIONER NO.2 BEING MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT JABEEN TAJ 3. M/S R C TRADERS NO.7/285, MURUGAN THEATRE OPP PANDAMANGALAM ROAD P VILLURS (POST) & K NAMAKKAL DIST TAMIL NADU(POLICY HOLDER) 4. SRI K SELVARAJ S/O K KALIAPPAN, MAJOR NO.44/120, STATE BANK COLONY METTUR DAM, SALAM DIST TAMIL NADU (RC HOLDER) ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K V GIRISH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 R3 & R4 SERVED - UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.04.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.4031/2010 ON THE FILE OF IX ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT-7, BENGALURU, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.5,68,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The appellant-Insurance Company has filed an appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, challenging the judgment and award dated 02.04.2012 in M.V.C.No.4031/2010 on the file of the IX Additional Senior Civil Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bengaluru.
2. The claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 seeking compensation for the death of Sri. Syed Sadath in a road traffic accident. It is stated that on 05.03.2010, when the deceased was traveling in a Car bearing Reg.No.KA-03-MF-6497 being driven by its driver, a Tempo bearing Reg.No.TN-28-T- 8388 being driven by its driver in a high speed, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Car in which the deceased was traveling, as a result, he sustained grievous injuries. Due to grievous injuries he succumbed to the injuries.
3. On service of notice, respondent No.1-Insurance Company appeared before the Tribunal and filed its statement of objections and contended that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Reg.No.TN-28-T-8388 as well as due to negligent driving of the Car driver.
4. Claimant No.1 got herself examined as PW-1 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P-14. However, the respondents have not lead any evidence on their behalf.
5. The Tribunal, on consideration of the material on record both oral and documentary, awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,68,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the following heads:
6 Loss of estate Rs. 10,000/-
Total Rs.5,68,000/-
6. The Tribunal held that respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly responsible to pay compensation holding that offending vehicle of respondent No.2 was solely responsible for the accident. The insurer being aggrieved by the said finding contended that both the drivers of the vehicles contributed for the accident.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance company submits that the Tribunal committed an error in fastening the entire liability on respondent No.1-Insurance company, as the driver of the Car involved in the accident was also responsible for the accident. Learned counsel further drew attention of this Court towards paragraph No.11 of the judgment of the Tribunal to contend that both the drivers of the vehicles contributed to the accident and due to their negligence, the accident took place.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contends that the Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that the accident occurred solely due to the negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing registration No.TN-28-T-8388 and prays for dismissal of the appeal.
10. On hearing the parties and on going through the material on record, the question which arises for consideration is whether the Tribunal committed an error in fastening the entire liability on respondent No.1- Insurance company. The answer for the above question is in the negative for the following reasons:
The accident occurred on 05.03.2010 involving Car bearing Reg.No.KA-03-MF-6497, a Tempo bearing Reg.No.TN-28-T-8388 and death of Syed Sadath in the accident is not in dispute in this appeal. The claimants stated that the accident took place due to negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN- 28-T-8388. Ex.P1 is the FIR and Ex.P7 is the charge-sheet filed against the driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal on assessing the material on record and the evidence of PW-1, which corroborates with the police records has rightly come to the conclusion that the accident occurred solely due to negligent driving of the offending Tempo Reg.No.TN-28-T-8388. The respondent No.1-Insurance company has not examined any witness or placed any evidence on record to suggest that the accident has taken place solely due to negligent driving of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-03-MF-6497. There is no material or evidence to show that there is contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-03-MF- 6497. The Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that respondent Nos.1 to 3 are liable to pay the compensation and fastening the liability on respondent No.1.
11. I do not find any good ground to interfere with the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE SMJ