Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1954 (KAR)

Sunita v. Appasaheb

2020-09-30

SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

body2020
JUDGMENT Suraj Govindaraj, J. - The appellant is before this Court aggrieved by the judgment of the VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi dated 31.08.2013, passed in MVC No.1555/2011. 2. The Tribunal by way of above judgment has awarded a sum of Rs.2,17,000/- with interest @ 7% p.a. in favour of the appellant for injuries sustained by her in the accident that occurred on 24.05.2009. 3. Heard. Admit. 4. With the consent of both the sides, the above appeal is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. 5. The nature and occurrence of the accident, coverage of the offending vehicle by 2nd respondent-Insurance Company is neither in question nor in dispute. What is in dispute is that, when the petition had been filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( the MV Act , for short) 25% of the negligence has been attributed to the rider of the motorcycle in which the petitioner was the pillion rider. 6. Sri. A. B. Nesargi, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that in a matter relating to Section 163A of the MV Act, no negligence could have been attributed to the rider of the vehicle. Attribution of the negligence to the rider of the motorcycle is improper, incorrect and due to the same the appellant has suffered and seeks for the said finding of the Tribunal to be set aside. 7. Sri. S. S. Koliwad, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent Insurance Company would submit that the apportionment of negligence is being made on the basis of the evidence on record and the same is proper and correct, does not require any interference at the hands of this Court. 8. Heard Sri. A. B. Nesaragi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. S. S. Koliwad, learned counsel for respondent No.2 Insurance Company. Perused the records. 9. Admittedly, the petition is filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The said provision provides for awardal of compensation as per a structured formula which is the minimum compensation that could be paid in cases of this kind. In view of the same, the Hon ble Apex Court in Chandrakanta Tiwari Vs New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Anr, (2020) 4 ALD 317 , more particularly at para 13 has held as under: 13. In view of the same, the Hon ble Apex Court in Chandrakanta Tiwari Vs New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Anr, (2020) 4 ALD 317 , more particularly at para 13 has held as under: 13. In this view of the matter, it is not relevant that the person insured must be the driver of the vehicle but may well have been riding with somebody else driving a vehicle which resulted in the death of the person driving the vehicle. The High Court, therefore, is clearly wrong in stating that it was necessary under Section 163A to prove that somebody else was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, as a result of which, the death of the victim would take place. 10. In view of the said judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court, I am of the considered opinion that the imposition of 25% of the negligence on the rider of the motorcycle is not correct and proper and the same is therefore set aside. 11. Sri. A. B. Nesaragi, learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no dispute as regards the quantum of compensation awarded. Hence, by setting aside the negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle, the entire amounts are required to be paid by the Insurer of the lorry which is involved in the accident. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part .