IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. L. NARAYANA SWAMY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.536 OF 2010 (MV) BETWEEN:
SRI G.K. KESHAVA MURTHY S/O SRI G.S. KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS NO.3, SUSHEELA ROAD UPPARAHALLI BANGALORE 5670 060 (BY SRI G.K. KESHAVA MURTHY, ADV.) AND:
1.MR. NOOR AHMED (OWNER) S/O MR. M. MUNNAWAR NO.2191, AHMMED SAFDARBAD MOHALLA GUTHAL COLONY, MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA 571 403 2. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY MANDYA BRANCH 602401 NO.1576, 1ST FLOOR VISWESWARAIAH ROAD MANDYA 571 401 ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ASHOK N. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.10.2009 PASSED IN MVC NO.1302 OF 2008 ON THE FILE OF IX ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER MACT-7, BANGALORE CITY PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION WITH INTEREST AT 18% P.A.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T For the injuries suffered in the road traffic accident, the petitioner made claim petition before the, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-7, Bangalore City. The Tribunal, by its judgment and award dated 07th October 2009 passed in MVC No.1302 of 2008 awarded compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-. While awarding compensation, Tribunal fastened the negligence to the extent of 50% on the petitioner. Against the same, this appeal is preferred.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. While fastening 50% negligence on the petitioner, the Tribunal has assigned reason in paragraph 9 of the judgment. The same is as follows:
“… On perusal of Exhibit P2 which is the panchanama wherein police have prepared the sketch which reveals accident has occurred on middle of the road. On perusal of the document it reveals accident has occurred head on collusion of both the vehicles.”
4. Considering Exhibits P3 and P2, the Tribunal has opined that the petitioner also has contributed to the accident to the extent of 50%. While observing so, the Tribunal has also discussed that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having driving licence to drive the maxicab class of vehicle. When such is the discussion made by the Tribunal, this Court, in appeal, cannot be re-appreciate the same. Accordingly appeal stands dismissed. Order of the Tribunal stands confirmed.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE lnn