Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 358 (KAR)

FAKEERAPPA v. KARNATAKA CEMENT PIPE FACTORY

2002-06-07

B.PADMARAJ, D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

body2002
SHYLENDRA KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles act is against the judgment and award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, dharwad, awarding a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation to the parents of one yallappa Angadi who died in the accident involving two motor vehicles. ( 2 ) THE application had been characterised as one under section 163-A read with section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. ( 3 ) THE application had been examined by the Tribunal as one under section 166 as is obvious on a perusal of the judgment and award. The trial court had in fact framed an issue relating to the negligence aspect on the part of the driver of the truck bearing No. KA 25-4107 and answered this issue positively. The Claims Tribunal then proceeded to quantify the quantum of compensation payable to the claimants. On applying the principles governing an application of this nature, the Tribunal held that the driver of the truck bearing no. KA 25-4107 was liable to pay the compensation amount. ( 4 ) MR. Lokesh Malavalli, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that the tribunal ought to have considered application under section 163-A and it is the submission of the learned counsel that if the application had been considered under section 163-A, the deductions towards the personal expenses of the deceased would have been reduced to 1/3rd of the income as against 50 per cent as has been now done by the Tribunal. Learned counsel submits that this could be done in this appeal and amount of compensation be suitably modified in favour of the claimants. ( 5 ) IN application under section 163-A, the claimants are not required to prove any negligence on the part of the driver/owner of the vehicle due to the movement of which on a public road an accident has been caused. The Tribunal has considered the application as one under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In fact, in an application under section 163-A there is a limit for quantum of compensation that could be claimed, whereas it is not so in an application under section 166. If that is so, it can be presumed that it will be always advantageous for a claimant if the application is one under section 166. In fact, in an application under section 163-A there is a limit for quantum of compensation that could be claimed, whereas it is not so in an application under section 166. If that is so, it can be presumed that it will be always advantageous for a claimant if the application is one under section 166. ( 6 ) WE do not find any merit in this appeal and accordingly it is dismissed. We also place on record our appreciation of the assistance rendered by learned counsel for the insurance company in clarifying certain aspects involved in this appeal. Appeal dismissed. --- *** --- .