MFA Ns:>'5:°19?;'2€?i}8
1
IN THE HIGH coum or KAREVEATAKA
cmwrr BENCH AT BHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 5T3 DAY or FEBRUARY, 2009-
BEFORE .
ms }:i0N'BLE MILJUSTICE 3.s.PAT.ii. V '
mxscmuamzoxxs FIRST APPEA:.*AHe.54sé7jé{it3¥$%.nfiL': V'
Between:
NI,' SI' National insurance C0. , '*- _
Divisional Office, .. "
Piubii,
Now repres.€:n_téd._b§?-1:;::_ » V
its REg"iCri1aIC)f"1i(:$, A' _ . .
3350.}.-44,Vé"';]:21,:1:)11%tii'-Stiifi-ra}i1r3E§:i~{';,.. ' '
M.G.R0a€1} ' "
Bangalore, 4_ V _
Represergted by its _
Admi;;._;;sumive Gificcr. V APPELLANT
f3y3}i.A;§§1.x§§nkatesh, Adv)
_ 1,
S/0 Shiva Naik,
' .. Ag¢'::i:~1%? years,
V 'Near Ramakrishna Ashram Road;
§{a1War.,
Mzzdoseil zkniony D'Si1va,
R/'0 Kafiwad, "I'a.l:Ka1War.
3. The {}iV"i$if}I1a}. Coniroiler,
KSRTC, Sirsi, RESPOKBEHT3
MFA E\€e,fsii9?!2{}08
In}
This appcai is fiied mzder Section 173 (1) of Act
against the judgment ané award dated 27.02.2008 pas_S§d'=Vi1:3.
MVC N0.188[2004- 01:1 316 file of the 18* Add}. 'K.a.."£§7ai',
awarding a comgensation of R3.'2,01,20{)/ -- with i1:tez'¢'é;t.T{f_:_j, '§'""v":3.é,j.s'
9.3.. froxn the date of petition til} {ha ciate 0f rea1j.§~}a'i:ign..VA_"V.
This aypea}. coming on for adm.1ssi<§r1; ibis <iajyf; t}_1€_V("3«<)ufi
éelivered the following: _
1.
In this apptaal by the fmdings
ragarding actionablé 11egV1:;.:’-§’.:fI’;;:fr’:’«_fio13;V*_tA3vfi’£t% theHd¥’iver of the
vehicle Tata Sumo 1 M– 1896
inv01ved. Ciiéifiénged by the app€EE.ant«
of the said Tam Sumo.
2. Tim _A11 38.93.2004 due to a cailision
.bCt\:»?€:e£i ‘1″;1§:a and a KSRTC has bearing rcgistxation
“E\E.;).VK_Au-V3 E9’? 3 result of the accident, the ciaimani in
M.v.s.f_.N0..1ég8:-g ism Sri.Ni1oba S/0 Shiva Naik who is axrayed
respésyfiiint No.1 herein sufiemd certain persenal injtmies.
inmate: of the Tata Same Sri.Madh’ukar died an {ha
N§.V.C§.No. 187/ 2084 is fiifid by flfifi dtszpendant of ihe
flfdeceased Madhukar which :13 Ciubbfié. by the Tribusflal along
Wifittz. M.V.C..N::s.188i2004 and a COIHIIIOIE judgmsnt is passéd.
%:
MP3 N0.549?”‘;”20C38
3. ‘ The contentien ef the appe11a13t~Insurafi1c§: V’
befam the Claims ‘Tribunal was ¥:lr,L:za;{ ‘acci£ient’ <:;i;.
account of the acticnable negligence <;§n'_t;11x=;_ Atlbvs 'dfiafi-rAvt3f.VV
the KSRTC bus and the driver §£v%:i1am'a:a" an}?
manner contribute to the ;–s.ame. =
4-. The Claimazlts had t'i1e'?;;iiIi:.j;;-éi;ition and in the
evidence £11211: 0:1 9? on the part of the
dzivérs of baflfi ;acCid:é:1€0c<:u11~&:d. However, in
the comjf§¢12iz3.t' the' inmates of the Tata Sums at
an eariiest "ii i»?a3 stated that 3 KSRTC bus was
§}1'(}C€':'['.a_L':":'1'iiV3ug.£«311f3E1tVC.§x Fata 8112330 and thc driver of the Tata
'iz*i_;;'§r."£ .::;{"x::v&r take the KSRTC bus. At £1131 time, the
c6l1_i$3{§fi between the Taia Sumo ané the: upcoming
bais in ixljizries to the inmates of the Tata
" 4.4"'–Sji1mo: Tiixcé Tribunal having analysed the evidence on record.
piaéizxg zeliazace on the FIR which was markezd as Ex.P.1
"has? returneé a fmding hoiding that the accident accurxeci due
VA " * "Vtvzo the actioixable negligence an the part of the driver sf tlm Tata
Sumo am} the KSRTG has éfi not centxibutc to the accident.
MFA N=:).S:£9?e'20U8
S. Learned counsel appearing for the appeliant V(v;<V3v'1::_t:fL';1.j£€iS»
that m ViCW 0f the evidence of the claimant who Wa;§"'thi:' %
of the Tata Sumo, the Tribunal oughf, to .,
KSRTC bus also contxibuted equally 4' 'V
6. This centention of the Ieairugitii c§i’uV;ié.:=.1 ;
cannot be accepted. The ‘I’I’:iif}’¥.1I1.:1p’z’§fi-.’sVV c1ele1i°1y;:ftj:unfii; that the
accident occurred when dr.iize;¢”Tata Sumo tried to
ovartake the KSRTC bus ahttad of it. At
that point of ancffher ” coming from ths
opposite Tata Sumo. The drive}: 0f
the Tata Sufn9″c911x1d_ attemptad to ever take: the bus
without?’ ‘Caring Q11: whether there was any vehicle
V.A’~._cfi$m:ififig oppesitc dirctzrtion. as has cleariy failed 33
e:>icrf:’i$*;ng” «iiI1_e’..:tii1igence in this regantl ané. was gr0sS1y
V V’ _:ti1egIi§€:–:1t 3′,fi.t1j,a*’3.1::g to over take the bus. Therefore, I do not find
or §3€I’V€I’Sii}?’ in the findings mcorded by the
in this rcigazfl.
The Tribuna} has 51130 very rightly” pointed out thai in
Qthfiff claim petitions filed by the othfir injuzmti axising out of
P’
¥
MFA No.549′..-‘£’2G(}8
the same accident, the Claims Tribuna} hati alreéfgtfiy
the accident occurred soiely due to _t’t1::,_1_1egl.i_Tg.é:”:1i§e:
of the driverr of the Tata Sumo iv
attained finality. For this reasdn xthe’ by . L’
rim Tribunal (10 not call for K
8. Hence, the appeal fails and the
same is dismissfifly’ V. I
Judge
Jm/-