THE CHAIRMAN Vs. SHRIKANT SUBHASH TANGADI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant who is aggrieved respondent No. 2 before the trial Court in M.V.C. No. 1601/2003 preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and award passed by the Additional M.A.C.T., Belgaum in the said motor vehicle case and fastening the liability on the appellant to the extent of 75% to be payable by him and also exonerating the liability of the respondent No. 3 -Insurance Company.

(2.) I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant -Sri S.S. Bawakhan and the counsel for the respondent No. 3. For the purpose of convenience I would like to keep rankings of the parties as per their ranks before the trial Court. The claimant Sri Shrikar Subhash Tangadi filed a claim petition against the respondents on the allegation that he sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident. It is the case of the claimants before the trial Court that on 26.06.1999 he was travelling in a tempo bearing its reg. No. KA -23/5741 for which the appellant is the owner, in order to go to Kannur from Nippani. According to the claimant the driver of the said tempo drew the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner while overtaking the motorcycle he dashed against the another vehicle which was coming from the opposite direction a truck bearing No. MH -04/H -4760 and due to the impact of the accident he suffered certain injuries. Owners of both the vehicles were made as respondents in the said case. First respondent is the owner of the truck bearing No. MH -04 -4760 and second respondent -appellant herein is the owner of the tempo bearing reg. No. KA -23 -5741. It is an undisputed fact that both the vehicles were covered by insurance and the third respondent is the insurer of both the vehicles. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the trial Court has committed serious error in fastening the responsibility on the owner, i.e., the appellant and exonerating the liability of the Insurance Company. Secondly, he contends before this Court that the apportionment and negligence between the two vehicles is also not proper and the same is not based on evidence on record. The trial Court has committed serious error in apportioning 75% negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle bearing No. KA -23 -5741 and only 25% on the driver of the another vehicle MH -04/H -4760. It ought to have apportioned negligence to the extent of 50% each. Therefore, on these two counts the learned counsel for the appellant is before this Court.

(3.) LOOKING to the above said facts and circumstances, nobody has spoken about the negligence on the part of the vehicle (truck) which was coming from the opposite side as to how the driver of the said vehicle drove the vehicle, what was his contribution to the accident, etc. because of the reason that both the vehicles were plying on the same road. Perhaps the driver of the vehicle bearing No. MH -04 -H -4760 if he would have taken care, would have avoided the accident by applying the doctrine of last opportunity, that some negligence is also there on the part of the driver of the said vehicle. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case it is crystal clear the entire negligence is fastened on the driver of vehicle No. KA -23/5741 at the initial stage while lodging the complaint and in fact charge sheet is also laid against the said driver, but considering the evidence which is on record the trial Court has come to the conclusion that 25% of the negligence has to be fastened on the vehicle of the other side. In fact, the owner of the truck (respondent No. 1) has not challenged the trial Court judgment in fastening the negligence to an extent of 25% on the driver of the vehicle MH -04/H -4760. Looking to the above said facts and circumstances of the case I do not find any strong reasons to deviate myself from the observations and the judgment rendered by the trial Court with regard to apportionment of the negligence to the respective drivers of the vehicle.