IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.NO.5117 OF 2013 (MV) BETWEEN:
1. SMT.SUNDARI, W/O LATE RAMAPPA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 2. HARISH S/O LATE RAMAPPA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 3. ASHA D/O LATE RAMAPPA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT PUMP HOUSE, DHARMASTHALA VILLAGE BELTHANGADY TALUK, D.K. 574 216 (BY SRI KARUNAKARA P, ADVOCATE) ... APPELLANTS AND:
1. MR. J.JEEVAN KUMAR, S/O BABUGOWDA, MITHRA NILAYA BEHIND STATE BANK OF MYSORE, C.R.PATNA, HASSAN DISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE 573 201 2. THE MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. HASSAN BRANCH, SHREE MANJUNATHESHWARA COMPLEX, BUS STAND ROAD, HASSAN 573 201 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.SRIDHARA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 R1-NOTICE D/W VIDE C.O. DT.07.10.2015) *** THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.12.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.187/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT, PUTTUR SITTING ITINERATE AT BELTHANGADY, DK, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Claimants are in appeal being aggrieved by the Judgment and Award dated 24.12.2011 passed in MVC No.187/2007 on the file of the Addl. Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Puttur sitting itinerate at Belthangady, DK (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short) by which, the Claimants are awarded with Rs.50,000/- compensation under Section 140 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short ‘the Act’), rejecting their claim petition under Section 163A of the Act.
2. Claimants are mother, brother and sister of the deceased Damodara who died in a road traffic accident. It is stated that on 18.10.2006, when the deceased along with a pillion rider were proceeding on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-13/Q-9061 from Ujire towards Dharmastala near SDM College, Ujire, their motorcycle dashed to an electric pole and road divider. Due to which they fell down and sustained injuries. Subsequently, both rider and pillion rider were succumbed to injuries. The deceased was aged 25 years and he was earning Rs.40,000/- per annum by doing agricultural work and also working as a pigmy collector.
3. The respondent/insurer, on appearance filed its statement denying the claim petition averments. The insurer contended that the claimants admitted that the deceased Damodara was riding the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-13/Q-9061 and dashed to the electric pole and road divider. Further, it was stated that the motorcycle was overloaded and as rider, the deceased lost control, due to which, the accident took place due to negligent driving of the rider of the bike. Therefore, they denied the liability to pay compensation.
4. The claimant No.1 examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P13(a). On behalf of the respondents, one document was marked as Ex.R1.
5. The Tribunal, on appreciation of material on record awarded total compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization under Section 140(2) of the Act on ‘no fault liability’ basis. Further, the Tribunal held that the claimants would not be entitled for compensation under Section 163-A of the Act, since the accident had taken place due to negligent riding of the motorcycle by the deceased. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants/claimants are before this Court.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the lower court record.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, the only point which arises for consideration is as to whether the Tribunal is justified in denying the compensation under Section 163-A of the Act?
8. Answer to the above point is in the affirmative for the following reasons:
The accident had taken place on 18/10/2006, the deceased Damodara was riding the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-13/Q-9061 along with pillion riders. It is seen from Ex.P1-FIR and Ex.P2-Complaint that while the motorcycle reached near SDM college, it dashed to the electric pole and then to road divider, due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorbike i.e., the deceased Damodara. P.W.3-eye witness, in his examination-in-chief has deposed as follows:
“I say that on 18.10.2006 at about 4.00 P.M., I was standing near Fancy Shop at opposite to S.D.M. College, Ujire, at that time One Motor Cycle Bearing Reg No.KA-13/Q- 9061 came from Ujire to Dharmasthala side along with pillion rider. When that Motor cycle reached near to S.D.M. College, Ujire, it dashed to electric pole and road divider in Ujire-Dharmasthala Road the said accident caused due to rash and negligent manner with high speed riding the rider of the said motor cycle. Due to this accident the said rider and pillion rider were fell down and they were sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter injured were shifted to hospital for treatment. Then I came to know that the said injured rider Damodhara and pillion rider Yashodhara was died due to the injuries sustained by them.”
The above portion of evidence of P.W.3 would demonstrate that the accident had taken place due to the negligent act of the rider of the motorbike himself and the claimants herein are claiming compensation for the death of Damodara who was riding the motorcycle. Hence, I am of the view that the Tribunal has rightly denied the compensation to the claimants under Section 163-A of the Act and rightly awarded Rs.50,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization on ‘no fault liability’ under Section 140(2) of the Act.
9. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is neither perverse nor erroneous, so as to interfere with. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE VK mpk/-*