Mwwma mam Iwumawmummm %8″‘”NNm79K’% wwwm@_.mM” WMMEYMEMWM W353″ WWW”! gm”… “AK”
“; mflmk Mmm mxwxz ma» Whflfififfififl mud-i Emmi” 0% ‘
~ : mmfiymm §–§?€”§w¥~¥ fifiwfi
IN THE HIGH comm’ OF KARNATAKA. jj
MFA 12457 /2007
cnzcurr BENCH AT r.}u1L.BAR_<§A ""' C
DATED THIS THE am DAY ofi'=.sE§?1'E'MBE§R,
BEiE?_(_}R.E
THE HON'BI,E MR.J1§ST1cE_»B.s;9Afr:L
Bmwnnn: _ j; '
Bhimanagouda;
S/0 Shankatag If ‘
Age 33 y( ‘§_.vI”.’i,”~.(.)(£!’Ii ;_>B11S”iI’lv2S’A.”iv,.A «.
R/o B.Bagewa;t1i, V’ ”
Dist. Bijapur. ‘ . ”
(By Sr!
I ‘ 1, V ‘ Basava.ta_~§a x, . __
% ks/oGa1ansahappa Pam.
” A Age: 42,?£)cc: Business,
3] 0 R&j£i33ément Spun
Pipe Works,
P.i3.N_0.124, Nehru Gun},
‘ ” ~TG_t1Ibé1’ga.
‘ “I’IA1’c Branch Manager,
Orienta}. Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Opposite S.S.’I’cmp}ae Road,
Bijapur, Dist. Bijapm’.
(By Bti Amaresh B.Roja, Adv. for R-1;
amt. Bmnitra 3., Adv. for R-2)
… APPELLANT
… RESPOHDEHTB
mnxwrm:
»» mwwx\A«y__V:I uwmnxvmamnw NEW” Kmfifiufii 1.33″‘ .
__ H cmm’ W mmmmwa men amen’ OF KAWAMM 5-ma emm
MFA 1245772007
This appeal is filed under Section 17.1%)’ }:;~fLe’f:sa”areeeLdAct,
against the judgment and eewaxd dated 10.03 passed in
MVC No.491/2002 on the file of »Membex*,”‘MA.C’I’-VI,’*ABi§api1r,’g
pmfly allowing the claim petition [for
enhancement for compensation.
This appeal coming ca’i1=f9r lieavxfiiig, t_j13:1e.vVC¢;>:i1rt
delivered the following: ‘
A ~ aurne2uEfl._15Ad%\.,,.%_
01. This appea1_is aggrieved by the
judgment-a1éC_’1__ ‘by::1’he_ §’dV1e&(3’I’-VI, Bijapur in MVC
id’ ‘ H E
()2. the Claims Tribunal has awarded a
suAm_of Rel} “fiitemst at 6% per axmum from the date
V’ ._ tiie’daie of payment, towards the damages caused
ear belonging to the appellant
O3§’=– The of the appellant briefly stated is that on
1’Z.()f2…2i1-€)1, a Maruti car belonging’ to the appellant bcann’ g
d’ ‘A.§l’0.-NniH–O9/E-1396 was taken to Sangazzn from Basavana
and when the car was returning to Basavana
Bagewadi at about 12.00 pm. in the midnight when the car
came near Almatti bridge on NH~13, a tipper loaded with sand
«%
W M ~Wwsh..wers «w-mmmm ruwm Wm. W mmmmm mm z..’uuxI’ 2;):-* mmmmm mm emm W mmmmm HEGH mum
MFA 12457 /2007
hearing No.KA-32/1097 was found stationed of
the read without putting any 1i8hts;= ij it
midnight and as parking lights not.’ fiauhte-n’,”‘thehtltfiwzvrehof
the maruti car could not notice: the lc:zf3’f,: s:a4s[Va iit.
dashed against the lorry. ‘r1ie= .ec:r:idc1tt’ ktéavingivfgzeslflted in
serious damage and the _appeilaht meved the
Claims Tribunal ‘ j .,
04. The PW~1. He examined
one Sn]. V Auto and Maruti Service
Statioti, as .. driver of the car Sri Kaneppa
as PW-3. Ex.P–5 — Estimate
Repert was show that the damaged vehicle was got
_ .t_Vei:.1._vthe estimate of the damage caused was prepared.
.’_l’h’_<_:_ e showed that the loss caused was in the
oxiier (sf ReA¢«i,A81,365/ ~.
2 The ‘i’n’hun$ has found from EXP-5 and also fiom the
; ence of PW-2, Proprietor of Balaji Auto and Maruti SeIv1ce’
Vt “Station that the document containing the estimate of loss was
duly proved. However it has proceeded to discard this material
4%»
mm mam
W LA] W W …,.,..,k.b. aw-mmwmazmmm %’EIW$’ME”fi¥ wwwaw WW’ mmwmmme WW5″ flaw”? WE
MFA 1245’7{2007
on the gound that the appefiant here-in had
Rs.45,000/- from the National h:1sux’a_:1ge__COI£_=.’;iat1′ * .
of the car towanls the damages placed by the claimant to show: ; received in full and final settlemehi: the 'Tribunal
has specifically found _did choose to
produce any docmgnent héhaehthot received the
amount from in full and finai
settlement of: for the payment of
damageeeu has placed reliance on
the judg:zheht– 1332. However, in View of
the ex;cnsive””egmg¢ caused to the vehicle and as the vehicle
V’ ‘was :»_A-s:Lvaai1A.ableV”Vf0r””11se, the claimant was found to have
‘expenses towards the incidental charges and
hence ..Rs.4,(){)O/ — was assessed as expenses incuned.
H The—-;i’n’bux1al also found from the evidence on record that
V , tL%er of the car was also negligent as there was suficient
VA on the road which he could have used to avoid runnm’ g
~ into the stationary lorry. The contributory negligence on the
part of the driver of the car was arrived at 73% and the
%
“””‘ ‘ “”””‘”A’ ‘,.- “”‘”*'””””‘”\*”~ ‘WW?’ K-s\-JUKI we- KAKNAIRKA HIGH CGURT OF KARNA?AKflx WJGH CWUR7 05” KARNATQKA Fiifiii COURE
MFA 12457/2007
negligence on the part of the driver of the Eozrry
lony without putting on the parking lights, it it
Accordingly, a sum of Rs.1,000/- catiixe afiiraided
Iespondents I 85 2 jointly and it
07. Having heard the the and on
careful perusal of the find that the
Tribunal has totally? a finding that
as the any materiai to
show that by him fmm the
Nationai full and final settlement
of the c1a1m’ ,i”‘heiiWa.-it for payment of damages. It is
_. the case uof the can be seen fiom his deposition,
_received the said amount of Rs.45,000/~
settlement of his claim. Reliance placed
T by the””eez:;:ft’ on the judgment reported in 2005 ACJ 1332
it it i.i4’ie:’note_ap..1i6s:itc to the facts of the case, as, in the said case, the
the truck had received compensation in full and fine)
of his claim from his insurance company and in
“$1613 cimumstances, it was held that he was not entitled to
c}aim compensation from the other insurance company which
%/
. -.w., ..,..u…….-..__r. …m.u.n..-mu-u nnwn uvum: Ur RMKNJMAKA wean COURV Q? %flHNfiT&Kfix Wfififi $0337 01” KARNKTAKK HIQW §§%UR”§
MFA 12457/2007
Maruti Service Station. Suflice it to say ‘.
approach atiopttxl by the court bckvw u u
end’ cnce on mcczrd is not consmd’ cIm ‘§.n
The matter mquims fresh = %’
03. Hence, thisappeal — fl’_h§é”j1;dg1ri¢iit am aware!
passed by the ‘I’rhuna1’ is is remitted to
the Tn’buna1 for {ma}: with Law.
% Sd/-
Iudge