Dharamendrappa Vs. State of Karnataka

.....compensation -actionable negligence of a driver of the offending vehicle held, a claim petition for compensation based on actionable negligence, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle need not be established beyond reasonable doubt like that of a penal action case i.e. criminal case. however, one cannot loose sight of evidence act and like a civil case, if it is purely based on facts, it has to be on the number of preponderance of probabilities. this preponderance of probability again is a relative word which depends upon the nature and quality of evidence let in by the parties. on facts held, having regard to the fact that the lorry and the motorcycle were proceeding near a bus stand where public including other vehicles were moving on the road, both the lorry driver and the motorcyclist ought to have exercised due diligence and care atleast for the safety of themselves especially a motorcyclist who was trying to overtake a heavy vehicle like that of a lorry especially in the night hours because the motorcyclist may not be able to visualize what are the vehicles that would be coming in the opposite direction ahead of the lorry. but for the clearance given by the lorry driver, the motorcyclist would not have ventured to overtake the truck. if only safe distance was maintained between the motorcycle and the truck the motorcyclist and the pillion rider would not have met with untimely death. all these facts would go to show both the lorry driver and the motorcyclist were not careful enough to avoid the avoid the accident which they could have avoided if only they had adhered to minimum safety precautions. however, under the facts and circumstances, it can be held that the driver of the lorry contributed negligence to an extent of 75% and the motor cyclist to an extent of 25% for the occurrence of the accident. .....the case of state of karnataka v. p.m. nageshwar rao and anr., 1987(1) klj @ 236 wherein it has been held that-'although as provided under section 10a of the essential commodities act, offences committed under the act are made cognizable, but the supervisory power regarding the enforcement of the under are specifically given to the other officers, other than (sic) as provided under rule 17(1).'5. in that case, on facts, it has been held that the police officer should not have taken the responsibility on himself of supervising the enforcement of the order and therefore the search made by him being in violation of section 165 cr.p.c. was held illegal and without jurisdiction. but the supreme court in the case of satyanarain musadi and ors. v. state of bihar, : 1980 crilj227 has taken a contrary view. it reads as follows:-'5. section 10a of the act provides notwithstanding anything contained in the code of criminal procedure, 1973, every offence punishable under the act shall be cognizable which would imply that an officer incharge of police station on receipt of the information of such cognizable offence without the order of a magistrate to investigate into the offence according to the procedure prescribed in chapter xii of the code.'in the ruling of the karnataka high court cited above, this ruling was not considered by his lordships. the supreme court has made it clear in the ruling cited above that an officer incharge of the police station, may, without the order of the magistrate investigates into the offence according to the procedure prescribed under chapter xii of the code. this court is bound to follow the ruling of the supreme court. in view of this ruling of the supreme court, the contention of the petitioner is untenable.6. hence i make the following order. petition not admitted. dismissed.