MAHADEV Vs. MURTAJSAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these two appeals, the appellants have questioned the Judgment & award dated 28.10.2013 passed in MVC Nos.298/2012 & 299/2012 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT No.VI, Jamkhandi (for short 'the MACT') on the issue of fastening liability of 50% negligence on the appellants and further they have sought for enhancement of the compensation.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that, on 11.12.2011, at about 9 a.m. when the appellants were riding a unregistered & non-insured Yamaha bearing Chassis No.05F5TS-5007673 which met with an accident with cruiser vehicle bearing registration No.KA-28/M-9858, which is stated to have hit the unregistered vehicle of the appellants from the rare side, while the appellants were taking right turn towards Harshit petrol pump, on Jamkhandi Mudhol road. Due to the accident, both the appellants suffered injuries. They filed claim petitions. The MACT proceeded to award compensation of Rs.1,39,036/- to the appellant-Mahadev and Rs.1,17,698/- to appellant- Mallikarjun.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants has raised two issues namely, fastening 50% of contributory negligence on the part of appellants is illegal and they are entitle to enhanced compensation amount. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that, the MACT has not given weightage to the filing of the charge sheet on the driver of the cruiser so as to skip the contributory negligence on the part of the appellants. Thus, the MACT has committed an error in fastening the liability of 50% on the appellants. In respect of the said contention, the learned counsel for the appellants relied on Ex.P1 Complaint, Ex.P3-Sketch and Ex.P5-MVA report. It was further contended that, from the sketch it is crystal clear that, the accident took place on the middle of the road, even though on the left hand side, sufficient space was available to the cruiser driver to take his vehicle. Thus, there is a negligence on the part of the driver of the cruiser and not on the appellants. It was also contended that, no charge sheet has been filed against the appellants. On the other hand, charge sheet was filed on the driver of the cruiser. Therefore, fastening contributory negligence on the appellants is highly arbitrary and illegal.