IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. L. NARAYANA SWAMY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6014 OF 2013 (MV) BETWEEN:
THE REGIONAL MANAGER ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED SUNDARAM TOWERS, NO.45 & 46 WHITES ROAD, CHENNAI – 600 014 BY IT’S MANAGER ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. O MAHESH, ADV.) AND:
1. DEEPTHI AGED 29 YEARS W/O LATE SURESH 2. KUM. DISHA AGED 6 YEARS MINOR, D/O LATE SURESH 3. MASTER SUPRITH AGED 3 YEARS MINOR, S/O LATE SURESH 4. SHIVAPPAGOWDA AGE 66 YEARS S/O LATE THAMMEGOWDA 5. SMT. RATHNAMMA @ RATHNA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS W/O SHIVAPPAGOWDA RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 ARE MINORS, BY THEIR MOTHER/GUARDIAN 1ST RESPONDENT ALL ARE R/AT NO.550, PUSPHA NILAYA, 8TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS BHUVANESHWARINAGAR BANGALORE – 74 AND ALSO AT: HULUGAR COLONY YEDADAVALU VILLAGE THYAVANA POST SHRUNGERI TALUK CHIKKAMANGALORE DISTRICT – 577 011 6. M/S N.T.RAHAMATHULLA KHAN ASSOCIATES, NO. 7917, 10TH CROSS, SUBASHNAGAR NELAMANGALA BANGALORE RURAL DIST. – 562 136 BY ITS PARTNER. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B.M.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV. FOR R1 TO R5; SRI.SANDESH SHETTY , ADV. FOR R6, R2 & R3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R1) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:20.04.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.3426/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.20,02,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T For the death of the breadwinner, the claimants filed claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore seeking compensation. The Tribunal, by its judgment and award dated 20th April 2013, passed in MVC No.3426 of 2012 awarded compensation of Rs.20,02,000/-. This appeal is by the Insurance challenging the judgment and award.
2. The case of the claimants are that on 23rd February 2012 at 11.30 p.m. when the deceased was waiting for signal on his motorbike bearing registration No.KA 04 EX 617 near Raghavendra Hospital ‘U’ Turn, Peenya, Bangalore, the offending vehicle bearing registration No.KA 52 620 came in a high speed and in rash and negligent manner caused the accident resulting the spot death of the two-wheeler rider. The another relative of the deceased, who also went to drop one of the relatives to the bus stop was following the deceased in a different two-wheeler, has made a complaint stating that the bus came in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the stationed two-wheeler waiting at the signal. Considering the case of the claimants and also the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and the documents as per Exhibits P1 to 27, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.20,02,000/-. Against the same this appeal is by the Insurance.
3. The challenge is on two grounds. Firstly, on the ground of negligence on the part of the deceased. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the same has not been considered. To fortify his submissions, the learned counsel referred to sketch as per Exhibit P6 and also the report of Inspector of Motor Vehicles as per Exhibit P7 and submits that the sketch itself shows that the deceased himself has contributed by entering the main road in rash and negligent manner; and under the circumstance, the negligence should have been fixed at 50% on the deceased. The learned counsel also submits that as per the case of appellant if the bus has caused the accident then it could have been evident from the report of Inspector of Motor Vehicles as per Exhibit P7 and submits that there are no visible damages seen on the bus and this itself shows that the bus has not caused the accident. The second ground taken is with regard to the quantum. The learned counsel submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding higher compensation.
4. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent-claimants drew our attention to the evidence of PW2 who is also the complainant, and the complainant as per Exhibit P1 and submits that he was following the deceased in a different vehicle and the deceased had stationed the two-wheeler waiting for signal and at that time the bus caused accident resulting in spot death. Referring this, the learned counsel submits that it is the negligence on the part of the bus.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The appellant-Insurance has not examined any witness or no documents have been marked. When such being the case, the evidence of First Information Report-Exhibit P1 is to be considered and rightly the same has been considered by the Tribunal. If it had been contradicted by the insurance that the negligence is on the part of the deceased, then to that extent there should have been cross-examination against PW2. This itself shows that there are no evidences or the documents made available to the Tribunal to the effect that negligence is on the part of the deceased. Considering all these facts, we hold that the reasons assigned by the Tribunal is proper.
6. As regards the contention taken with regard to the quantum, the Tribunal has considered all the material evidence and the documents placed as also the oral evidence adduced before it and awarded the just and proper compensation. We are of the view that there is no ground for interference in this appeal. Accordingly appeal stands dismissed. Amount in deposit be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE lnn Sd/- JUDGE