Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Smt. Mahaboobi W/O Ameensab ... on 1 June, 2022
Bench: P.Krishna Bhat
-1-
MFA No. 22496 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.KRISHNA BHAT
MFA NO. 22496 OF 2010 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SEETA SMRUTHI,
MARUTI GALLI, BELGAUM.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI RAVINDRA R. MANE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. MAHABOOBI W/O AMEENSAB BASARIGIDAD
AGE: ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: TONDIHAL, TQ: HUNGUND, NOW RESIDING AT
SECTON NO.63, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT.
2. PREMA W/O RAJESAB BASARIGIDAD
AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O:TONDIHAL, TQ: HUNGUND, NOW RESIDING AT
Digitally signed
SECTOR NO. 63, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT.
by JAGADISH T
R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA,
3. BASAVARAJ S/O HANAMANT BAJANTRI
DHARWAD
Date: 2022.06.02
10:25:43 +0530
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF TOM TOM
VEHICLE REG.NO.KA-28/A-756,
R/O: SECTOR NO.48, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI CHANDRASHEKHAR M. HOSAMANI, ADV. FOR R1)
(R2 & R3-SERVED)
THIS MFA FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:02-01-2010
PASSED IN MVC NO.347/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER,
-2-
MFA No. 22496 of 2010
MACT.NO.III, BAGALKOT, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
RS.3,88,000/- WITH THE INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% PER
ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF
REALIZATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed at the instance of the Insurance
Company calling in question the judgment and award
dated 02.01.2010 in MVC No.347/2007 by the learned
MACT-III, Bagalkot (for short, 'MACT') by which the claim
petition was allowed in part awarding a compensation of
Rs.3,88,000/- with interest thereon at the rate of 6% P.A.
from the date of claim petition till date of realization.
2. The only substantial contention of learned
counsel Sri. R.R. Mane appearing for the appellant-
Insurance Company is that the claim petition is founded on
a false case and that the insured vehicle namely Tomtom
bearing registration No.KA-28/A-756 was not at all
involved in the accident.
MFA No. 22496 of 2010
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 02.04.2007 at
about 10 p.m., one Ameensab Basarigidad was walking on
the extreme left side of the road proceeding to his village
from Ilkal and at that time, offending Tomtom vehicle
bearing registration No.KA-28/A-756 being driven by its
driver in a rash and negligent manner and in high speed
dashed against him and on account of the same, he died
on the spot itself.
4. On claim petition being presented, the
respondents entered appearance through their learned
counsel and filed their separate statement of objections.
Respondents denied the material averments made in the
claim petition.
5. During the trial, claimant No.1 examined
himself as PW1 and one eye-witness was examined as
PW2 and Exs.P.1 to P6 were marked. Respondent-
Insurance Company examined one of its officials as RW1
and Exs.R1 and R2 were marked.
MFA No. 22496 of 2010
6. Learned MACT after hearing the learned counsel
on both sides and perusing the records, allowed the claim
petition in part awarding a compensation of Rs.3,88,000/-
with interest thereon at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date
of the petition till the date of payment.
7. As already noticed, the sole contention of the
learned counsel for the appellant for impeaching the
judgment and award in question is that no accident
involving the insured vehicle had occurred. It is no doubt
true that in the complaint filed before the Police, the
complainant who is the mother of the deceased has only
stated that an unknown vehicle had dashed against the
deceased resulting in his death. It is nowhere the case of
the claimants that either complainant was the eye-witness
to the incident or she had any information about the
manner in which the accident had taken place. In this
behalf, the claimants have not only examined the eye-
witness as PW2, but he has also cogently spoken about
MFA No. 22496 of 2010
the manner of happening of the accident. It is relevant to
notice that the accident had taken place during the night
hours and it is therefore, not unnatural for the mother who
was at home that she was not aware of the circumstances
of the accident. The evidence of PW2 was not at all shaken
during the cross examination and the Police after
investigation have filed charge sheet at Ex.P4 against the
driver of the offending Tomtom vehicle. The respondents
have not examined the driver-cum-owner of the offending
Tomtom vehicle.
8. Learned MACT on appreciating the entire
material evidence has come to the conclusion that the
accident resulting in death of the deceased took place only
on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of
the offending Tomtom vehicle in question. I find no error
in the appreciation of the evidence made by the learned
MACT and therefore, I do not find any good ground to
interfere with the judgment and award passed by the
MFA No. 22496 of 2010
learned MACT. Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be
dismissed.
9. Hence, the following:
ORDER
The above appeal is dismissed.
The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to
the learned MACT along with original records forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SSP
