O LATE LAXMAN v. SHETTY, NOW AGED ABOUT
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15847 MFA No. 65 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 10954 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 65 OF 2013 (MV) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 10954 OF 2013 (MV-D) IN MFA No. 65/2013 BETWEEN: NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE BHARATH BUILDING, NEAR HOTEL SRINIVAS, MANGALORE - 575 001, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, SUBHARAM COMPLEX, 144 M G ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.
Legal Reasoning
Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. A.N. KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND: …APPELLANT 1. SMT. SHALINI L. SHETTY W/O LATE LAXMAN V SHETTY NOW AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 2. KUM. RESHMA @ KEERTHANA D/O LATE LAXMAN V SHETTY NOW AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS 3. KUM. SOUNDHARYA, D/O LATE LAXMAN V. SHETTY, NOW AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN/MOTHER THE 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN, R/O HOUSE NO. 127, M R P L COLONY KUTHETHOOR POST, MANGALORE TALUK - 575 001. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15847 MFA No. 65 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 10954 of 2013 4. RADHAKRISHNA RAI, S/O PRABHAKAR RAI, MAJOR, SUBRAMANYA NILAYA, DEREBAIL VILLAGE & POST MANGALORE TALUK - 575 001. 5. THE SENIOR MANAGER (ADMN.) M/S M R P L, KUTHETHOOR POST, VIA KATHIPALLA, MANGALORE TALUK - 575 001. 6. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., BALMATTA BRANCH, PLAZA COMPLEX, BENDOREWELL CIRCLE, KANKANADY, MANGALORE - 575 001. (BY SRI. PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. NANDAGOPAL, ADVOCATE FOR R5; SRI. S.T. RAJASHEKARA, ADVOCATE FOR R6 R2 RESHMA SERVED; R4 RADHALRISHNA RAI SERVED; R3 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY R1) …RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.07.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.313/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, & CJM, MEMBER, MACT, MANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF Rs.4,05,500/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT. IN MFA NO. 10954/2013 BETWEEN: 1. MRS. SHALINI L. SHETTY, W/O LATE LAXMAN V. SHETTY AGED 42 YEARS 2. KUM. RESHMA @ KEERTHANA D/O LATE LAXMAN V. SHETTY AGED 21 YEARS 3. KUM. SOUNDHARYA D/O LATE LAXMAN V. SHETTY AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15847 MFA No. 65 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 10954 of 2013 THE 3RD APPELLANT IS A MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER NEXT FRIEND & MOTHER, NATURAL GUARDIAN ALL ARE RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.127, M.R.P.L COLONY, KUTHETHOOR POST, MANGALORE TALUK - 574 190. (BY SRI. PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT, ADVOCATE) ...APPELLANTS AND: 1. SRI. RADHA KRISHNA RAI, MAJOR, S/O PRABHAKAR RAI, SUBRAMANYA NILAYA, DEREBAIL VILLAGE AND POST, MANGALORE TALUK - 575 008. 2. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, BHARATH BUILDING, NEAR HOTEL SRINIVAS, MANGALORE - 575 001. 3. THE SENIOR MANAGER (ADMN), M/S M.R.P.L KUTHETHOOR POST (VIA) KATIPALLA, MANGALORE TALUK - 574 190. 4. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., BALMATTA BRANCH, PLAZA COMPLEX, BENDOREWELL CIRCLE, KANKANADY MANGALORE - 575 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.M. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. S.T. RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4 VIDE ORDER DATED 02.09.2016, R1 AND R3 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.06.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.313/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, & CJM, MEMBER, MACT, MANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15847 MFA No. 65 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 10954 of 2013 THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the award passed in M.V.C No.313/2005 dated 30.07.2012, by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Member, M.A.C.T., Mangalore, both the Insurance Company as well as the claimants are before this Court. Claimants' appeal is M.F.A.No.10954/2013 and the Insurance Company's appeal is M.F.A.No.65/2013. 2. Initially, the claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short) seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- and thereafter, they got it amended claiming the compensation under Section 163A of the Act for an amount of Rs.4,25,000/- with interest and costs. Later, the Tribunal had considered the said case under Section 166 of the Act and held that the accident had taken place because of the negligence of the deceased as well as the driver of the opposite vehicle and fixed the negligence at 50% on both of them and when it comes to the compensation, the Tribunal had granted an amount of Rs.4,05,500/-. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15847 MFA No. 65 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 10954 of 2013 3. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that the Tribunal had rightly considered and held that the accident had taken place because of the negligence on the part of both the driver of the bus as well as the deceased. It is submitted that the contributory negligence fixed by the Tribunal is high and it ought not to have been at 50%. It is submitted that the compensation that is awarded by the Tribunal is not just and reasonable. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that the charge sheet i.e., filed against the deceased shows that because of his negligence, the accident had happened. The Tribunal, without any basis has held that there is contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, which is contrary to the evidence on record. Initially application is filed under Section 166 of the Act and again it was converted into Section 163A of the Act and again the Tribunal considers it as an application under Section 166 of the Act. It makes it clear that converting this petition from Sections 166 to 163A as the negligence is on the part of the driver and on the part of the deceased. Therefore, they have come up with - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15847 MFA No. 65 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 10954 of 2013 such an application and the Tribunal without any basis had granted the compensation. 5. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. The claimants are relying on Ex.P12 - mahazer and Ex.P13 - spot mahazer. The Insurance Company is relying on Ex.R2 - charge sheet copy and even these mahazers and the sketch are also part of the police records. He has also filed the FIR in the complaint. Those documents relied on by the counsel for the claimants shows that the deceased was at fault. When an application is filed under Section 166 of the Act, the claimants have to prove the negligence of the opposite vehicle. The finding of the Tribunal that there is negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, is without any basis and by considering the only part of the documents and without giving any finding on the charge sheet i.e., filed against the deceased, holding that he is responsible for the said accident. In the considered opinion of this Court, the claimants have failed to discharge their burden that the accident had occured because of the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus but not on the deceased and the material available on record points out at the negligence of the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15847 MFA No. 65 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 10954 of 2013 deceased, which was not properly appreciated by the Tribunal. In that view of the matter, this Court finds that the order impugned needs to be set-aside. i) Accordingly, the order dated 30.07.2012 passed in M.V.C.No.313/2005, by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge & Member, M.A.C.T., Mangalore is set aside. ii) The appeal filed by the Insurance Company is allowed and the appeal filed by the claimants is dismissed. iii) Amount in deposit shall be forthwith transferred to the Tribunal and the Insurance Company is at liberty to withdraw the same. iv) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the judgment passed by this Court forthwith without any delay. v) No costs. vi) Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE KA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3 Ct: BHK