The Divisional Manager vs Smt. Parashuram S/O Nagendrappa ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 10506 Kant

                                               -1-




                                                         MFA No. 20086 of 2011


                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                                     DHARWAD BENCH

                           DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

                                            BEFORE

                      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

                               MFA NO. 20086 OF 2011 (MV-I)

                      BETWEEN:

                            THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
                            THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
                            DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
                            RAMDEV GALLI, BELGAUM,
                            NOW REP. BY SRI. V.C.SHINGYANNAWAR,
                            ASST. MANAGER,
                            NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
                            DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
                            RAMDEV GALLI, BELGAUM.

                                                             ... APPELLANT
                      (BY SRI. M.K.SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                      1.    SMT. PARASHURAM
                            S/O. NAGENDRAPPA MAHENDRAKAR,
                            AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND
         Digitally
         signed by
         ROHAN
         HADIMANI
                            HOTEL BUSINESS, R/O SAVANUR,
ROHAN    T
HADIMANI Location:
T        DHARWAD
                            TQ. and DIST. HAVERI,
         Date:
         2022.07.11
         10:26:42
                            NOW AT KALAL GALLI,
         +0530
                            JAMKHANDI, DIST. BELGAUM.

                      2.    NAGENDRAPPA
                            S/O PARASAPPA MAHENDRAKAR,
                            AGE: 23 YEARS,
                           -2-




                                    MFA No. 20086 of 2011


     OCC: OWNER OF MAXI CAB,
     R/O SAVANUR, DIST. HAVERI.

3.   THE M.D. NWKRTC,
     GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI.

                                 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S.S.BADAWADAGI, ADV. FOR R3;
 R1 - SERVED;
 R2 - NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT)

     THIS MFA FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF THE MOTOR
VEHICLE ACT 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD     DATED:30.08.2010   PASSED   IN   MVC
NO.800/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED
PRESIDING     OFFICER,   FAST   TRACK    COURT
JAMKHANDI, AT JAMKHANDI, AWARDING TOTAL
COMPENSATION OF RS.57,500/- WITH INTEREST AT
THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION
TILL REALIZATION.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                      JUDGMENT

This appeal by the insurer calls in question the

Judgment & Award dated 30.08.2010 made by the

Court of Fast Track at Jamkhandi whereby the claim in

MVC No.800/2007 having been favoured a

compensation of Rs.57,500/- with interest at the rate

of 6% subject to a usual condition of bank deposit has

MFA No. 20086 of 2011

been awarded. The appeal is mainly structured on the

Doctrine of Composite Negligence.

2. After service of notice, the contesting

respondent has entered appearance through it's

Senior Panel Counsel, and the claimants have

remained unrepresented. Panel counsel makes

submission in justification of the impugned award.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties and having perused the original TCR, this

Court declines indulgence in the matter inasmuch

as the Court below being an expert body having

considered all aspects of the matter in a right

perspective has made the subject award; the MVC

proceedings are statutorily treated as summary

proceedings and therefore, the scope for

interference of the Appellate Court is not as wide

as it would have been otherwise.

MFA No. 20086 of 2011

4. The vehement contention of learned

counsel for the appellant that in deciding the

Composite Negligence, the principles evolved by

the Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of decisions

have not been kept in view is bit difficult to

countenance inasmuch as on the basis of materials

available on record, such an exercise has been

accomplished by the learned Judge of the Court

below and unless a strong case is made out, the

same does not merit a deeper examination at the

hands of this Court as rightly contended by the

learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for

respondent-NWKRTC.

5. There is yet another reason for not

granting indulgence in the matter; the accident is

of September, 2005, the award has been made on

30.08.2010; since the accident years have

MFA No. 20086 of 2011

elapsed. This apart the amount awarded is

apparently an insignificant sum of Rs.19,09,262/-

(Ninteen lakhs nine thousand two hundred and

two only).

In the above circumstances, appeal being

devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed and

accordingly, it is, costs having been made easy.

Amount in deposit, if any, along with TCR

shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Court for

being released to the claimants without brooking

any delay.

Sd/-

JUDGE

RH