Karnataka High Court
The Oriental Insurance vs Erappa And Anr on 29 July, 2024
Author: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5435
MFA No. 201557 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201557 OF 2017 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGIONAL MANAGER,
SNEHLATHA COMPLEX,
GREEN LANDS ROAD, BEGUMPET,
HYDERBAD,
NOW THROUGH THE
SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
1ST FLOOR, N.G. COMPLEX,
OPP: MINI VIDHAN SOUDHA,
KALABURAGI-585102.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
AND:
by RENUKA
Location: HIGH 1. ERAPPA S/O HANMANTH SORALE,
COURT OF AGED: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
KARNATAKA
R/O. VILLAGE MUSTAPUR,
TQ. AURAD-B, DIST. BIDAR-585326.
2. M/S JEMINI CARRIER
OWNER OF TANKER BEARING NO. GJ-06/Z-483,
R/O. VUDU SHOPPING CENTRE, CHHANI,
DISTRICT BARODA (VADODARA)
GUJARATH-391510.
...RESPONDENTS
(ABATED-V/O DATED 04.04.2024 APPEAL AGAINST R1 STANDS
DISMISSED; NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5435
MFA No. 201557 of 2017
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO
CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED-16.01.2016 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MACT, BIDAR IN MVC
NO.380/2012 BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AS PRAYED.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA) This appeal is by the Insurance Company challenging the award passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bidar (for short, the Tribunal) by which a sum of `7,29,728/- was awarded for the death of daughter of the first respondent.
2. It is the principal contention of the Insurance Company that the husband of the deceased Badigeri Ramesh had filed a claim petition in respect of the very same accident before the MACT at Sangareddy in MVOP No.414/2011 and the said Tribunal was also pleased to award compensation of `6,00,000/- along with interest at -3- NC: 2024:KHC-K:5435 MFA No. 201557 of 2017 the rate of 8% per annum, which has in fact been satisfied.
3. It is the case of the Insurance Company that compensation in respect of the death of the husband of the deceased was the subject matter of a claim proceedings before the MACT at Sangareddy, the father of the deceased could not have filed one more claim before the MACT, Bidar. He submits that the filing of claim petition before MACT at Sangareddy by the husband of the deceased was totally suppressed and the Tribunal on the basis that no other claim had been made has passed the impugned award granting a sum of `7,28,728/-. It is therefore contended that in respect of the one death in one accident, two awards have been passed and this would be untenable.
4. Notice to this appeal was ordered and it appears that an endorsement was received that the first respond was dead. Consequently, an order was passed -4- NC: 2024:KHC-K:5435 MFA No. 201557 of 2017 that the appeal stands abated, since steps were not taken within time.
5. Learned counsel for the Insurer submits that the Insurance Company was unable to take steps since they were unable to trace the legal heirs of the deceased first respondent. He submits that since the claim in respect of the very same accident has been subject matter of another claim proceedings and an award has also been passed and also been satisfied, no useful purpose will be served to bring the legal heirs of deceased first respondent on record.
6. He submits that, if the deceased had other legal heirs other than the first respondent, it would be open for them to seek for apportionment of their share by initiating a separate proceedings against the husband of the deceased.
7. In my view, this submission deserves acceptance. If in a motor vehicle accident for the death of a victim, the claim petition filed by the husband and an -5- NC: 2024:KHC-K:5435 MFA No. 201557 of 2017 award is passed and this is also been satisfied by the Insurance Company, obliviously the other legal heirs could not have maintained a separate and a parallel claim.
8. It is no doubt true that the Insurance Company ought to have brought this fact to the notice of the Tribunal, but obviously due to the bureaucratic procedure that Insurance Company follows, this has not been done. However, before this Court the award passed by the MACT at Sangareddy has been produced and on perusal of the same, it is clear that the award in respect of the very same accident. The voucher is also produced to indicate that amount awarded has been satisfied.
9. In this view of the matter, the impugned award cannot be sustained and same is accordingly set-aside. It is however made clear that if there are other legal heirs of the deceased who are entitled to make a claim, they would be entitled to proceed against Badigeri Ramesh, the husband of the deceased, who has secured the award and seek for their share by making necessary application either -6- NC: 2024:KHC-K:5435 MFA No. 201557 of 2017 before the very same Tribunal or by initiating other proceedings.
The appeal is accordingly allowed.
The impugned judgment and award dated 16.01.2016 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge and MACT, Bidar in M.V.C.No.380/2012 is set-aside.
Sd/-
(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7 CT: VD