Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 86 (KAR)

H. Sreenivasa v. Rudramma And Others

2020-01-09

N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

body2020
JUDGMENT Neranahalli Srinivasan Sanjay Gowda, J. - The owner of the Hero Honda motor cycle is in appeal, challenging the award of the Tribunal, by which a sum of Rs. 7,09,000/- is awarded for the death of deceased Thimmappa on 04-01-2013. 2. It was the case of the claimants that deceased Thimmappa was walking beside the road on 22-12-2012, at which point of time, the rider of the Hero Honda motor cycle bearing Registration No. KA-16/K-2493 collided with him, as a result of which, he sustained grievous injuries and ultimately succumbed to the same. The claimants contended that for the wrongful act of the rider of the motor cycle, they were required to be compensated for the death of their father deceased Thimmappa. 3. It appears that the said motor cycle was not insured and hence, the claim was made only against the owner of the motor cycle. 4. The owner of the motor cycle entered appearance and put forth his plea that his vehicle was not at all involved in the accident and that he was not riding the motor cycle on the alleged point of time. He further went on to plead that he was not at all in Hosadurga Taluk on 22-12-2012 as he had been deputed to training at Chitradurga from 18-12-2012 to 22-12-2012. The owner put forth an alibi that on 22-12-2012 at about 5:30 p.m. he had been for shopping with his friends Mahanthappa and S. Jayappa and on completion of shopping at about 7:15 p.m., he boarded the Bus at 7:30 p.m. and reached Hosadurga at 9:15 p.m. Therefore, there was no possibility of his motor cycle being involved in the accident in question. 5. It was contended that an FIR had been lodged after a period of three days and hence, the criminal case initiated against the owner would be of no relevance moreover when he had been acquitted in the criminal case. 6. The Tribunal, on consideration of the evidence came to the conclusion that the owner of the motor cycle had failed to prove his alibi and merely because the owner had been acquitted in a criminal case, that would not absolve him of liability under the Motor Vehicles Act. 7. The Tribunal in order to come to the conclusion that the motor vehicle had been involved in the accident, relied upon the IMV report at Ex. 7. The Tribunal in order to come to the conclusion that the motor vehicle had been involved in the accident, relied upon the IMV report at Ex. P-6 which indicated that the front mud guard of the motor cycle had been damaged and the Tribunal also took note of the fact that the complaint of the owner regarding the implication of his motor cycle by the Police had been filed nearly after one year and therefore, the Tribunal was not inclined to accept the plea of the owner that his vehicle had been falsely implicated. 8. Before the Tribunal, the claimant No. 2 - son of the deceased was examined as PW-1. PW-1 during the course of his cross-examination, categorically stated that, the accident had occurred near their land which is about a furlong from their house. He has stated that when he went to the spot, after being informed of the accident, he found his father lying near their land and a number of people had gathered there and he had noticed that his fathers skull had cracked open. He categorically stated that the motor cycle in question was at the spot of the accident. 9. In my view, since the offending motor vehicle was found at the spot, that by itself sufficient to come to the conclusion that the said motor cycle was involved in the accident. It is to be noticed that for the purpose of determining the compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, the principle of preponderance of probabilities is to be followed and not the principle of proof beyond all reasonable doubt. 10. In my view, the fact that the motor vehicle report also indicated there was damage to the front mud guard of the motor cycle coupled with the availability of the motor cycle on the spot is by itself sufficient to hold that the vehicle in question was involved in the accident and was the cause of the accident. 11. In view of the fact that no other defence other than the defence of alibi was taken by the owner of the motor cycle, the Tribunal, in my view, was justified in coming to the conclusion that, the owner of the vehicle was vicariously liable for payment of compensation. 12. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 11. In view of the fact that no other defence other than the defence of alibi was taken by the owner of the motor cycle, the Tribunal, in my view, was justified in coming to the conclusion that, the owner of the vehicle was vicariously liable for payment of compensation. 12. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The amount in deposit by the appellant-owner shall be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith for disbursement in terms of the award.