Karnataka High Court
Smt.Indrawwa W/O Hanmant ... vs Rachanna S/O Krushnappa ... on 1 June, 2022
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF JUNE 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
MFA No.202002/2016 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Indrawwa W/o Hanamant Khajjidoni,
Age: 58 years, Occ: Household,
2. Hanamant S/o Krushnappa Khajjidoni,
Age: 63 years, Occ: Agriculture.
Both R/o Jambagi (H),
Tq. & Dist. Vijaypur.
.....Appellants
(By Sri. Sanganagouda V.Biradar, Advocate)
AND:
1. Rachanna S/o Krushnappa Khajjidoni,
Age: 27 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Jambagi (H), Tq. & Dist. Vijaypur.
2. Krushnappa S/o Rachanna Khajjidoni,
Age: 48 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o. Jambagi (H), Tq. & Dist. Vijaypur.
3. The Branch Manager,
ICICI Lombard General
Insurance (Motor Insurance)
Company Limited, 414,
Veerasawarkar Marga,
Prabhadevi, Mumabi-400025.
.....Respondents
(Notice to R1 & R2 are served;
By Sri. Subhash Mallapur, Advocate for R3)
2
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act 1988, praying to allow the appeal by modifying the
judgment and award dated 06.01.2016 passed by the MACT
No.VI at Vijayapura in MVC No.1853/2013 and consequently be
pleased to enhance the compensation from Rs.3,64,500/- to
Rs.8,25,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of
petition till actual realization.
This appeal coming on for Admission, this day, the court
delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the petitioners challenging
the judgment and award dated 06.01.2016 passed in
MVC No.1853/2013 by the MACT-VI, Vijayapur,
seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are
referred with the ranks occupied by them before the
Tribunal.
3. The factual matrix leading to the case are
that the petitioners are the parents of deceased Vinod.
That on 25.01.2013, the deceased Vinod had been to
NSSK Sugar from Jambagi(H) Village. He was
returning by riding the motorcycle bearing registration
No.KA-28/EA-0503 at about 10.30 p.m. Nearby the
land of one Goudappa Baragi on Galagali-Vijayapur
road, one unknown vehicle came from opposite
direction and dashed to the motorcycle of deceased.
Due to the said impact, the deceased sustained severe
injuries and died on the way to hospital. That the
petitioners being the parents have spent a sum of
Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and deceased
was aged about 23 years at the time of accident and
he was earning Rs.40,000/- per month by maintaining
the entire family. The petitioners have lost their son
as well as the financial support. Hence, they filed
claim petition seeking compensation under Section
163-A of the M.V.Act.
4. The respondents have appeared through
their counsel. The respondent No.1 filed objections
denying the allegations and assertions made
thereunder and admits that he was the owner of the
vehicle bearing registration No.KA-28/EA-0503.
Further asserts that it is insured with respondent No.2
and the policy was in force and the deceased was
possessing valid and effective driving license as on the
date of the accident. Hence, respondent No.1 has
disputed his liability.
5. The respondent No.2 filed objections
denying the allegations and assertions made
thereunder. It is asserted that the accident has
occurred because of the negligence on the part of the
deceased himself and as such the petition is not
maintainable. He has also denied the rest of the
assertions made in the petition including the age,
occupation and income. Hence, sought for dismissal
of the claim petition.
6. After appreciating the oral and
documentary evidence, the tribunal has awarded the
total compensation of Rs.3,64,000/-.
7. Being aggrieved by the compensation
awarded by the tribunal, the petitioners have filed this
appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
8. Heard the arguments advanced by the
learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel
for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company. Perused
the records.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants would
contend that the tribunal has erred in fastening the
liability on respondent No.1(a) though the vehicle was
duly insured with respondent No.2. Hence, he would
seek for fastening the liability on insurer. He would
also contend that the quantum awarded by the
tribunal is on lower side. However, he would fairly
submits that he is not pressing that aspect of
quantum in view of the elaborate discussion and
proper reasoning given by the tribunal. Hence, he
would seek for allowing the appeal by fastening the
liability on respondent No.2-Insurer.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurer
would support the award passed by the tribunal.
11. Having heard the arguments and perusing
the records, it is evident that the deceased Vinod died
due to the accidental injuries while he was riding the
offending vehicle bearing registration No.KA-28/EA-
0503. Since the petition is filed under Section 163-A
of M.V.Act, the negligence has no relevancy and the
accident is because of use of the vehicle. The vehicle
was duly insured with respondent No.2. Hence, the
respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable
to pay compensation.
12. The tribunal has considered the evidence
on record, applied proper multiplier and as per the
provision of law has come to a right conclusion that
the petitioners are entitled for compensation of
Rs.3,64,000/- with interest @ 6%. However, in view
of the fact that the deceased was not possessing valid
and effective driving license, it has fastened liability
on respondent No.1, who was the owner of the
vehicle.
13. However, in view of the decision Pappu
and others Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba and another
reported in 2018 ACJ 690, the Insurance Compnay
is liable to pay compensation with a liberty to recover
the same from the owner-respondent No.1. Hence,
the tribunal has erred in fastening the liability on
respondent No.1(a) alone rather than respondent
Nos.1 and 2. Hence, to this extent, the judgment and
award passed by the tribunal calls for interference and
accordingly the appeal needs to be allowed in part.
14. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the
following;
ORDER
(a) The appeal is allowed in part.
(b) The judgment and award dated
06.01.2016 passed in MVC
No.1853/2013 by the MACT-VI,
Vijayapur, awarding compensation to
the tune of Rs.3,64,500/- to
petitioners with interest stands
confirmed.
(c) However, the order of the tribunal
regarding fastening the liability on
respondent No.1(a) is modified and
liability is fastened on respondent
Nos.1(a) and 2 jointly and severally.
(d) The respondent No.2-Insurance
Company is directed to pay the entire
compensation amount with accrued
interest thereon within six weeks from
today with liberty to recover the same
from respondent No.1(a).
Sd/-
JUDGE
msr
