AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.V. Chandrashekara, J.—These appeals are directed against the judgment and award passed in MVC. Nos. 117/10 and 118/10 pending on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Divn.) and MACT, Gulbarga.
The claim petitions have been dismissed on the ground that they have failed to prove that the driver of the jeep in which they were travelling, was negligent and rash in his driving. Their case is that they were travelling as police officials in Gulbarga and were proceeding in a police jeep bearing No. KA-32-G-531 and it was an escort vehicle to the official vehicle of the then education minister who was travelling from Yadgir to Gulbarga. When the jeep reached a place near Chigaralli Cross, the driver of the jeep drove in a rash and negligent manner and lost control of the vehicle. Resultantly the jeep turned turtle as a result of which petitioners sustained grievous injuries and were shifted to Government Hospital, Jewargi, and thereafter shifted to Rajiv Gandhi Super Speciality Hospital, Raichur, where one of the petitioners took treatment as in-patient.
It is the case of the petitioners that they have spent sufficient amount towards treatment and have undergone severe shock and pain. Their capacity to earn has been reduced, is their case.
Karnataka Government Insurance Department (KGID), insurer of the jeep has filed detailed written statement denying all material averments. Petitioners have been called upon to strictly prove the contents o the petition. According to the 2nd respondent-insurer, the driver of the jeep was cautiously driving from Yadgir to Gulbarga and when they crossed Chigaralli Cross, another vehicle came from the opposite direction and tried to overtake a lorry which had been parked, and dashed against as a result of which the jeep turned turtle.
On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:
"In MVC. 117/10:
1) Whether the claimant proves that on 26.7.2008 at about 3.30 p.m. when they were escorting education minister car and when they were near Chigaralli cross, the driver of jeep bearing No. KA-32-G-531 drove it in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life as result jeep turtled and petitioner and other inmates of jeep sustained grievous injuries?
2) Whether respondent No. 1 proves that driver of opposite side coming unknown vehicle which dashed to jeep bearing No. KA-32-G-531 is responsible for the accident?
3) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
4) What award or order?
In MVC. 118/10:
1) Whether the claimant proves that on 26.7.2008 at about 3.30 p.m. when they were escorting education minister car and when they were near Chigaralli cross, the driver of jeep bearing No. KA-32-G-531 drove it in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life as result jeep turtled and petitioner and other inmates of jeep sustained grievous injuries?
2) Whether respondent No. 1 proves that driver of opposite side coming unknown vehicle which dashed to jeep bearing No. KA-32-G-531 is responsible for the accident?
3) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
4) What award or order?"
Petitioners have been examined as P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 and Dr. Shanthapa who treated them has been examined as P.W. 3. 70 exhibit have been got marked on their behalf. Nobody has been examined on behalf of the respondent. Ultimately the petitions were dismissed on the ground that they have failed to prove actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the approach of the Tribunal is improper and incorrect and even if the stand of KGID is accepted, they should have examined the jeep driver. A few stray admissions culled out from the mouth of the petitioners have been blown out of proportion to non-suit them and they have been denied of their legitimate claim to get just compensation.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The fact that these petitioners were travelling in a Government jeep on 26.7.2008 as escort jeep to the official vehicle of the then education minister is not in dispute. The fact that these petitioners were injured in the accident is also not disputed. The case of the respondent is that a vehicle came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and tried to overtake the lorry which had been parked on the side of the road and in the process hit the jeep, and thus the jeep driver was not at all responsible for the accident. To substantiate this, the driver of the jeep should have been examined. If the police officials have not been able to trace the vehicle which allegedly came from the opposite side and caused the accident, petitioners cannot be found fault with and hence they cannot be non-suited.
The very fact that the petitioners were inmates of the police jeep itself goes to show that at best it could be a case of composite negligence and the KGID can recover from the other offending vehicle which is not traced. Thus the approach adopted by the Tribunal is incorrect and improper.
Tribunals are vested with sufficient power to award suitable compensation to victims of road accidents and to order ''just'' compensation, all necessary steps have to be taken. Even otherwise, the Tribunal was expected to assess compensation in terms of money under different heads. Since issue are framed, it is incumbent on the Tribunal to answer them irrespective of the ultimate finding. Issue No. (3) in both the case does not relate to the quantum of compensation and is not answered. Suffice to state that the judgment and award passed in both the petition are opposed to facts, law and probabilities. Hence the appeals have to be allowed and the matter remitted to the court below to consider the matter afresh in the light of the observation made by this court.
In the result, I pass the following order:
ORDER
"Both the appeals are allowed. The judgments and awards passed in MVC. Nos. 117/10 and 118/10 are set aside and the matters are remitted to the Tribunal to consider the matter afresh. Appellants are at liberty to adduce additional evidence if they so desire and the Tribunal shall take a realistic view in regard to negligence and assess compensation, keeping in mind the principles reiterated by the Division Bench of this court in the case of K. Narasimha Murthy Vs. The Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Another, .
Appeals are allowed with costs. Parties shall appear on 19-1-2015, before the MACT Gulbarga, without fail and thereafter the claim petitions be disposed off within three months from 19.01.2015."