MOULA HUSSAIN S/O ABDULASAB TANGEWALE vs BASAPPA PEECHI S/O KENCHAPPA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16612
MFA No. 104318 of 2017
CNR: KAHC020152602017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 07 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.104318/2017 (MV)
BETWEEN:
MOULA HUSSAIN S/O ABDULASAB TANGEWALE
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HORSE CART RIDING,
R/O: NIRMITHI KENDRA, KOPPAL,
TQ: KOPPAL, DIST: KOPPAL.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI M. AMARE GOUDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BASAPPA PEECHI S/O KENCHAPPA
AGE: 34 YEARS,
OCC: DRIVER OF NEKRTC BUS
NO.KA-37/F-247,
R/O: KSRTC DEPOT, AND KOPPAL,
TQ: AND DIST: KOPPAL.
2. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
SELF INSURER OF NEKRTC BUS
BEARING NO.KA-37/F-247,
KSRTC DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
OFFICE, KOPPAL.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRASHANT S. HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED.)
Digitally signed by
BHARATHI H M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
Date: 2026.10.16
16:27:58 +0530
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO
CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.09.2017, PASSED IN MVC
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16612
MFA No. 104318 of 2017
CNR: KAHC020152602017
NO.405/2015, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOPPAL,
AND AWARD THE COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED BEFORE THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. M.A.C.T., AT KOPPAL, IN
M.V.C.NO.405/2015, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS,
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is preferred by the claimant against
the impugned judgment and award dated 22.09.2017,
passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT,
Koppal (for short, ‘Tribunal,) in MVC No.405/2015,
whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant is
dismissed.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that, on
18.05.2015, the claimant being the owner of horse cart,
proceeding towards Kushtagi road. At about 11.00 a.m.
when he was proceeding near railway gate at Koppal,
respondent No.1 being the driver of KSRTC bus, came
from Basaveshwar Circle, in a rash and negligent manner
and dashed to the said horse cart from behind and due to
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16612
MFA No. 104318 of 2017
CNR: KAHC020152602017
the said impact, the horse cart fell into a ditch by the side
of the road resulting in the cart got damaged, the horse
and the petitioner sustained injuries. Soon after the
accident, the claimant was shifted to Government hospital,
Koppal and thereafter he was referred to Higher Center at
Kampli. He sustained fracture of femur bone and injuries
all over his body. He took treatment from 18.05.2015 to
23.05.2015 as an inpatient and he spent more than one
lakh rupees for his medical expenses. The accident in
question was caused due to the negligent act of the driver
of the bus who is respondent No.1. The claimant prior to
the accident was earning Rs.9,000/- per month by running
horse cart. Due to the accidental injuries, he could not
able to earn a single rupee and he became completely
disabled. Hence, he constrained to file claim petition
before the tribunal.
3. In response to the notice, respondent No.1
being the driver of the bus and respondent No.2 insurer
entered appearance and filed common objections. They
contended that the accident was not caused due to any
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16612
MFA No. 104318 of 2017
CNR: KAHC020152602017
rash and negligent act of driver of the bus. In fact the
accident was caused due to sole negligence on the part of
the claimant. When the horse cart was proceeding near
railway gate by carrying huge load of bamboos, the
claimant could not control the horse which resulted in
turtle and the cart fell into a ditch by the side of the road
and thereby the was accident caused. Therefore, learned
counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 contended that the
claimant is not entitled to any compensation.
4. In order to establish his case, the claimant
examined himself as P.W.1 and the doctor who treated
him as P.W.2. On behalf of respondent No.1, the driver of
the offending vehicle was examined as R.W.1.
5. The claimant produced and marked documents
as Exs.P1 to P17. No documents were produced on behalf
of the respondents.
6. The learned Tribunal, after appreciating the oral
and documentary evidence on record, dismissed the claim
petition on the ground that, the claimant had failed to
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16612
MFA No. 104318 of 2017
CNR: KAHC020152602017
establish that the accident was occurred due to the rash
and negligent driving of respondent No.1.
7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and
award, the claimant has preferred the present appeal.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/claimant contended that, the learned Tribunal
has failed to properly appreciate the oral and documentary
evidence available on record.
9. It was submitted that, immediately after the
accident, one Nagappa who was also an occupant of the
Horse Cart
said , lodged a complaint before the Koppal
Traffic Police Station. On the basis of the said complaint
Crime No.30/2015 came to be registered against
respondent No.1.
10. It was further submitted that, during the course
of investigation, the police found that, the accident had
occurred due to the rash and negligent act of respondent
No.1, who was driving the KSRTC bus bearing No. KA-
37/F-247. Accordingly, a charge sheet came to be filed
against respondent No.1.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16612
MFA No. 104318 of 2017
CNR: KAHC020152602017
11. Learned counsel for the appellant contended
that, after investigation, the police had filed a charge
sheet against respondent No.1, the learned Tribunal ought
to have considered the same along with the other
evidence on record and awarded just compensation for the
injuries sustained by the claimant.
12. It was further contended that, the accident
occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of
respondent No.1 and therefore, the claimant is entitled to
compensation. The learned Tribunal, failed to properly
appreciate the evidence on record and erroneously
dismissed the claim petition. Hence, the appellant prayed
for setting aside the impugned judgment and award
passed by the Tribunal and for awarding just and
reasonable compensation.
13. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.1 as well as respondent No.2-Insurance
Company supported the judgment and award passed by
the learned Tribunal.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16612
MFA No. 104318 of 2017
CNR: KAHC020152602017
14. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended
that the learned Tribunal had properly appreciated the
evidence on record and rightly concluded that, the
claimant had failed to establish the alleged negligence on
the part of respondent No.1.
15. It was further contended that the claimant was
Horse Cart
carrying a large quantity of bamboo in the and,
Horse Cart
due to the overloading the became unstable.
Cart
When the horse pulling the heard the horn of the bus,
Horse Cart
it allegedly moved the from one side to the
Horse Cart
other as a result of which the suddenly fell into
a ditch and the claimant sustained injuries. Therefore,
according to the learned counsel for respondent No.2, the
injuries were not caused due to any rash or negligent act
on the part of the driver of the bus.
16. On these grounds, learned counsel for
respondent No.2 submitted that the learned Tribunal had
rightly appreciated the evidence and dismissed the claim
petition. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal and
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16612
MFA No. 104318 of 2017
CNR: KAHC020152602017
confirmation of the judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal.
17. This Court has carefully perused the records.
18. The claimant has produced a copy of the
complaint, which is marked as Ex.P2 and is dated
18.05.2015. The said complaint was lodged by one
Nagappa, who stated that he was undergoing treatment at
KIMS Hospital and he had sustained injuries in an accident
involving the bus bearing registration No.KA-37/F-247.
19. On the basis of the said complaint, a criminal
case came to be registered against respondent No.1, who
was the driver of the said bus.
20. Thereafter, the police conducted investigation,
drew the spot mahazar, which is marked as Ex.P3 and
registered the FIR against respondent No.1. Upon
completion of the investigation the police has also filed a
charge sheet against respondent No.1 alleging that, the
accident had occurred due to his rash and negligent
driving.
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16612
MFA No. 104318 of 2017
CNR: KAHC020152602017
21. It is not the case of respondent No.1 or
respondent No.2 that, the charge sheet filed against
respondent No.1 was challenged or the criminal
proceedings initiated pursuant thereto had culminated in
his exoneration.
22. The contemporaneous documents produced by
the claimant, namely the complaint, FIR, spot mahazar
and charge sheet lend support to the claimant's case
regarding the manner in which the accident occurred.
23. The contention of respondent No.2-Insurance
Company is that, the accident was not caused due to the
negligence of respondent No.1 and the claimant sustained
Horse Cart
injuries because the suddenly fell into a ditch
after the horse became frightened on hearing the horn of
the bus. It is further contended that, the claimant was
Horse Cart
carrying a large quantity of bamboo in the ,
resulting in overloading and loss of balance.
24. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has drawn
the attention of this Court to the cross-examination of
P.W.1, wherein P.W.1 is stated to have admitted that,
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16612
MFA No. 104318 of 2017
CNR: KAHC020152602017
Horse Cart
while he was travelling in the , the horse, on
Horse Cart
hearing the horn of the vehicle, moved the
Horse
from one side to the other, as a result of which the
Cart
fell into a ditch.
25. However, P.W.1 has denied the suggestion that
the accident did not occur due to the dash of the bus and
the accident occurred solely because of the movement of
Horse Cart
the . Therefore his evidence has to be
considered in its entirety and not by isolating a particular
answer elicited in cross-examination.
26. When the evidence of P.W.1 is considered along
with the contemporaneous documentary evidence,
namely, Ex.P2-complaint, FIR, Ex.P3-spot mahazar and
the charge sheet filed against respondent No.1, the
evidence on record establishes, on the touchstone of
preponderance of probabilities and that the accident
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of
respondent No.1.
27. The learned Tribunal, without properly
appreciating the oral evidence of P.W.1 and the
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16612
MFA No. 104318 of 2017
CNR: KAHC020152602017
contemporaneous documentary evidence placed on record,
has erroneously dismissed the claim petition.
28. Accordingly, the finding of the learned Tribunal
on the issue of negligence requires interference. This Court
holds that, the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of respondent No.1.
29. When this court has come to a conclusion that,
they accident has occurred only due to the negligence of
the first respondent-driver of NEKRTC Bus, second
respondent insurer is liable to pay compensation.
30. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention that,
as the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition, it has not
assessed the compensation to be payable to the claimant.
As the claimant has produced evidence regarding
assessment of the compensation, instead of remanding the
matter to the Tribunal for assessment of the
compensation, on the basis of the evidence, this court
proceeds to assess the compensation with the consent of
learned counsels for respective parties.
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16612
MFA No. 104318 of 2017
CNR: KAHC020152602017
31. I nsofar as the quantum of compensation is
concerned, learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that the claimant sustained a fracture of the left femur and
also suffered injuries to the left hip and hip joint.
32. The claimant examined the doctor who treated
him as P.W.2. The doctor deposed regarding the nature of
the injuries sustained by the claimant and the treatment
provided to him. The disability certificate issued by the
doctor was marked as Ex.P16.
33. As per the evidence of P.W.2 and Ex.P16, the
doctor assessed the permanent physical disability of the
claimant at 22% of the whole body. Upon consideration of
the oral and documentary evidence on record, this Court
finds that the assessment of whole-body disability at 17%
would be just and reasonable.
34. The claimant contended that, he was earning
₹9,000/- per month at the time of the accident. However,
he has not produced any documentary evidence to
substantiate his monthly income. The accident occurred in
the year 2015. In the absence of documentary evidence
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16612
MFA No. 104318 of 2017
CNR: KAHC020152602017
regarding the claimant's income, the notional monthly
income is required to be assessed in accordance with the
chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services
Authority for the relevant year. As per the said chart, the
monthly income of the claimant is assessed at ₹8,000/-.
35. The claimant was aged about 48 years at the
time of the accident as per Ex.P.16. Hence, the applicable
multiplier is '13'. Accordingly, the compensation payable
towards loss of future earning capacity is calculated as
follows:
₹8,000 × 12 × 13 × 17% = ₹2,12,160/-
36. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled to
compensation of ₹2,12,160/- towards loss of future
earning capacity.
37. The compensation is reassessed as under:
Head This Court
Pain and suffering ₹35,000/-
Loss of income during laid up period
₹24,000/-
( ₹8,000 /- x 3)
Towards Loss of amenities ₹30,000/-
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16612
MFA No. 104318 of 2017
CNR: KAHC020152602017
Head This Court
Towards Food nourishment and Attendant
₹12,000/-
charges
Loss of future earning capacity ₹2,12,160/-
Towards medical expenses ₹70,917/-
Total ₹3,84,077/-
38. Accordingly, this court proceed to pass the
following order:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part .
(ii) The judgment and award dated 22.09.2017
passed in MVC No.405/2015 by the Senior
Civil Judge and Additional MACT., Koppal, is
hereby set aside.
(iii) The claimant is entitled to total compensation
of ₹3,84,077/- with interest at 6% p.a.
from the date of petition till deposit.
(iv) The insurance company is directed to deposit
the compensation amount, within six weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
Sd/-
(RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE)
JUDGE
MRK-upto para 3.
AC-para 4 to end.
CT-CMU
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 27