Karnataka High Court
Rajakka W/O Arjun Shinde vs The Senior Divisional Manager on 2 December, 2021
Bench: M.G.Umapresided Bymguj
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA
M.F.A.NO.100994/2016
BETWEEN
1. SMT. RAJAKKA W/O ARJUN SHINDE
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O: JATH, TQ: JATH, DIST: SANGLI
NOW AT BHOI GALLI, BELAGAVI.
2. PRAWAJAL S/O ARJUN SHINDE
AGE: 18 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
R/O: JATH, TQ: JATH, DIST: SANGLI
NOW AT BHOI GALLI, BELAGAVI.
3. PRATIK S/O ARJUN SHINDE
AGE: 16 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
R/O: JATH, TQ: JATH, DIST: SANGLI
NOW AT BHOI GALLI, BELAGAVI.
(SINCE APPELLANT NO.2 & NO.3 ARE
MINOR ITS NATURAL GUARDIAN
APPELLANT NO.1)
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.SANTOSH HATTIKATAGI, ADVO FOR
SRI. SANTOSH.B.RAWOOT, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER
LIC OF INDIA,
JEEVAN TARA GANAPATDAS DEVI PATH,
SARDAR BAZAR SATARA, TQ & DIST: SATARA,
MAHARASTRA STATE,
(OWNER OF THE VEHICLE NO.11/BH-0669)
-2-
2. THE DIVISION MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT RAMDEV GALLI, BELAGAVI,
(INSURANCE OF VEHICLE NO.11/BH-0669
POLICY NO.3510103112632179113
VALID FROM 06/11/2012 TO 05/11/2013)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SHIVASAI.M.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SMT. ARUNA.R.DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/O XLIII
RULE 1 (A) OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, PRAYING TO SET-
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE COURT OF IX
ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDL.MACT
BELAGAVI, DATED 25.07.2015 IN M.V.C.1212/2014, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING-
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
: JUDGMENT :
The appellants-claimants are before this court
impugning the order dated 25.07.2015 passed by the
learned IX Addl.District and Sessions Judge &
Addl.M.A.C.T., Belagavi (hereinafter referred as
'Tribunal'), directing to return the petition filed by the
petitioner under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act (for
short 'M.V.Act'), for the purpose of presenting the
same before the proper Tribunal.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, there was a
road traffic accident that had occurred in Maharashtra
State within the jurisdiction of Miraj City Police
Station. The vehicle in question was insured at
Maharashtra State with respondent No.2. However,
the claimants filed claim petition before the Tribunal in
M.V.No.1212/2014, claiming compensation from the
insurance company. During trial, the Tribunal found
that the cause of action of the petition arose in State
of Maharashtra. The offending vehicle was insured
with respondent No.2, which was also in the State of
Maharashtra and even the evidence of PW1 disclosed
that the claimants were the residents of Maharashtra
State. Therefore, the impugned order was came to be
passed which is under challenge.
3. Heard learned counsel Sri.Santosh
Hattikatagi for Sri.Santosh.B.Rawoot, for the
appellants, learned counsel Sri.Shivasai.M.Patil, for
respondent No.1 and learned counsel Smt.
Aruna.R.Deshpande, for respondent No.2.
4. Perused the material on record.
5. The point that would arise for my
consideration is as follows:
"Whether the impugned order dated
25.07.2015 passed in M.V.C.No.1212/2014
on the file of learned IX Addl. District and
Sessions Judge and Addl.M.A.C.T.,
Belagavi, is liable to set aside?
6. My answer to the above point is in the
'Negative' for the following:
: REASONS :
7. On perusal of the materials on record in the
light of the submissions made by the learned counsel
for both the parties, it is found that the accident took
place within the jurisdiction of Miraj City Police Station
of Maharashtra State. Respondent No.1 is the resident
of Maharashtra State. The policy which is marked at
Ex.R1 before the Tribunal was issued in Maharashtra.
The claimant was examined as PW1 and he specifically
stated that petitioner No.2 is studying in Jath till
31.5.2013. Even though the petitioner stated that he
is having Adhar Card and other documents to show
that he is the resident of Belagavi, no such documents
were produced. Per contra during cross-examination of
PW.1, he admitted that he is having Ration Card and
Election I.D and those documents show that the
petitioners are the residents of Jath, in Sangli District.,
Maharashtra.
8. Taken into consideration all these materials
on record, the Tribunal proceeded to pass the
impugned order basing its finding on the decisions in
Subhadra and Others Vs Pankaj and Others1.
9. Even though, the learned counsel for the
appellant addressed his argument to contend that at
present the petitioners are residing in Belagavi, the
ILR 2013 Karnataka 102
same cannot be taken into consideration to set-aside
the impugned order, which is well reasoned order
passed on the materials that are placed before the
Court. Therefore, I do not find any merits in the
contention taken by the appellants.
10. In view of the discussion held above, I
answer the above point in the negative and
accordingly proceed to pass the following:
: ORDER :
The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AM/-
