Siddegowda vs Mahabelshwara Naika

Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—Claimants in MVC 1908/2009 aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 22nd August, 2012 of the Fast Track Court, Channarayapatna, dismissing the claim petition for compensation have presented this appeal.

Facts not in dispute are:

That one Prakash the rider of the motor cycle on 24-10-2008 at about 6.55 p.m. while returning from Hassan to his village, near Shanthigrama petrol bunk, an accident occurred involving the bus bearing Regn. No. KA 19-F-2625 belonging to Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (for short �KSRTC�) whence he succumbed to grievous injuries.

On a complaint lodged by the driver of the KSRTC bus that the rider along with two others on the motor cycle, in a rash and negligent manner while trying to overcome another motor vehicle came to the extreme right side of the road, in the opposite direction, and dashed against the KSRTC Bus, which led to an investigation and a charge-sheet against the deceased rider. Parents of the deceased invoking Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short �MV� Act) presented a claim petition, registered as MVC 1088/2009, before the MACT for compensation, whence, the respondents registered the claim and on framing issues, the second claimant mother of the deceased was examined as PW.l and another Range Gowda as PW.2 and marked seven documents Exs. P1 to P7 while for the respondent, the driver of the KSRTC bus was examined as RW. 1 and the Extension Officer of New India Assurance Company as RW.2 and marked 10 documents as marked Exs. R1 to R10.

MACT framed two issues, the first of which is the alleged actionable negligence of the driver of KSRTC bus and the other, as to whether claimants were entitled to compensation and if so, to what amount. In the premise of the pleadings of the parties, the evidence both oral and documentary and material on record, MACT answered the first and second issues in the negative to dismiss the petition by the judgment and award impugned.

There is no dispute that PW. 1 mother of the deceased was not an eye-witness. There can be no more dispute that PW.2 Range Gowda, in cross-examination, admitted that he was at a distance of 3 furlong from the place of the accident, at the time of accident, and he could not make out the other vehicle involved in the accident. PW.2, though stated to be an eye-witness, his evidence was of no assistance in proving the alleged rash and negligent driving of the KSRTC bus by RW1. The police records clearly disclosed that the complaint lodged by the driver of the KSRTC bus RW1 stated that there were three persons on the motorcycle of which, the deceased was the rider, and having come on the wrong side of the road, dashed against the KSRTC bus, traversing the road in the opposite direction.

An examination of the judgment and award impugned, the evidence both oral and documentary, certified copies of which are made available by learned counsel for the respondent - KSRTC, what can be deciphered is PW. 1 mother of the deceased spoke to the factum that the deceased was riding of the motorcycle on the day and time in question and that he as earning Rs. 10,000/- per month, while in the cross-examination admitted that permanent licence of the deceased was not available; PW.2 Range Gowda, though in examination-in-chief claimed to be an eye-witness, nevertheless, in cross-examination admitted the fact that he was present, at the time of accident, at a distance of three furlong from the place of accident. Thus, there was no evidence worth the while to establish that negligence of the driver of the bus who was alleged to be driving negligently to cause the accident.

The testimony of RW. 1 driver of bus is a clear indication of the motorcycle, coming in the opposite direction on the wrong side trying to overtake another motor vehicle, in a rash and negligent manner dashed the bus on the front side due to which rider and the two pillions succumbed to grievous injuries. The cross-examination does not disclose eliciting any incriminating statements so as to discredit his examination-in-chief.

In the light of testimony of witnesses and the police documents, it is evidence that the accident was due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle in question. No exception can be taken to the reasons, findings and conclusion arrived at by the MACT, attributing actionable negligence on the rider of the motorcycle and sequentially dismissing the claim petition. Appeal devoid of merit, dismissed.