The Branch Manger vs Smt.Ambaramma W/O Late Mudukappa ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8875 Kant

                            1


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   KALABURAGI BENCH

          DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE 2022

                         BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

                MFA No.201805/2014 (MV)

BETWEEN:


THE BRANCH MANAGER,
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
E-8, EPIP INDUSTRIAL AREA,
SITAPUR, JAIPUR-302022
NOW OFFICE AT:
NO.302, 3RD FLOOR, S-S CORNER BLDG.
PLOT NO.48, BOWERING HOSPITAL ROAD,
SHIVAJI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560001.
                                           ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI. SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     SMT. AMBARAMMA
       W/O LATE MUDUKAPPA,
       AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,

2.     HANUMAPPA
       S/O LATE MUDUKAPPA,
       AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

3.     SMT. LAXMI D/O LATE MUDUKAPPA
       W/O AMBARESH,
       AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
                            2


4.    SMT. HANUMANTHI
      D/O LATE MUDUKAPPA W/O SABAYYA,
      AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,

5.    SMT. DURUGAMMA @ LAXMI
      D/O LATE MUDUKAPPA,
      W/O KARIYAPPA,
      AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
      OCC: HOUSEHOLD,

6.    DODDA SHIVAPPA
      S/O LATE MUDUKAPPA,
      AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

7.    SANNA SHIVAPPA
      S/O LATE MUDUKAPPA,
      AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

8.    SMT. YELLAMMA
      D/O LATE MUDUKAPPA,
      W/O NRASAPPA,
      AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,

9.    CHANDAPPA S/O LATE MUDUKAPPA,
      AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

10.   KUM. SHANTAMMA
      D/O LATE MUDUKAPPA,
      AGE: 12 EARS, OCC: STUDENT,
      SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY:
      RESPNODENT NO.1.

      ALL R/O GUNJ ROAD, RAICHUR-584101.

11.   VENKATESH
      S/O LINGAPPA @ LINGAYYA,
      AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF
      JEEP NO.AP-07/Y-2763,
      R/O NARBANDA VILLAGE, TQ. MANVI,
      DIST: RAICHUR-584101.
                                3


12.   RANGANATH S/O LINGAPPA,
      AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF
      JEEP NO.AP-07/Y-2763,
      R/O H.NO.94, NARBANDA VILLAGE,
      TQ. MANVI, DIST. RAICHUR-584101.
                                             ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ R.MATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R10;
 BY SRI. SUDHIRSINGH R.VIJAPUR, ADV. FOR R11 & R12)

     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO
ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE AWARD
DATED 01.10.2014 IN MVC NO.580/2013 PASSED BY THE II
ADDL. DIST. JUDGE & MACT, RAICHUR.

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

                        JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 ('MV Act' for short) by the appellant-

Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award

dated 01.10.2014 passed by the II Additional District and

Sessions Judge and MACT, Raichur in MVC No.580/2013,

whereby the Tribunal has allowed the claim petition and

awarded compensation of Rs.5,93,000/-. The appellant-

Insurance Company is challenging the issue of liability in this

appeal.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

appellant-Insurance Company and the learned counsels

appearing for the respondents No.1 to 12.

3. The main contention of the appellant/Insurance

Company is that the deceased was travelling on the top of the

Jeep and hence, there is a breach of policy condition and as

such, it is contended that the Tribunal is erred in fastening the

liability on the Insurance Company. However, this issue has

been dealt with by this Court in a decision reported in ILR

2000 KAR 612 ( United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Vs. Doddapapaiah and another), wherein it is observed as

under:-

" Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( Central Act No.59 of 1988)-Section 123(2) and 149(2) - Respondent claimed compensation for injuries inflicted while travelling in the bus- Insurance Company countered the claim on the ground that the respondent was travelling on top of the bus and thus was not entitled to compensation - Tribunal granted compensation to the respondent

- This Court affirmed the same on the ground that the Act does not say anything about not giving

compensation to passengers travelling on top of the bus."

4. In the instant case also, the deceased was inflicted

with injuries and succumbed as a result of the injuries

sustained while travelling in the Jeep. On this point only, he

has also placed reliance on a decision of this Court rendered in

MFA No.201926 c/w. MFA 200064/2014 (MV) vide

judgment dated 12.01.2021 (Marilingamma Vs.

Venkatesh), wherein this Court placing reliance on

Doddapapaiah's case cited supra, held that the Insurance

Company is liable to pay compensation. Hence, the contention

raised by the Insurance Company is no longer res integra and

now it is covered by the decision of this Court.

5. There is no dispute regarding the liability and

coverage of Insurance Policy on offending vehicle. Apart from

that, the claimants are not aggrieved by the quantum and the

Insurance Company has challenged only the liability. Under

these circumstances, in view covered decision in

Doddapapaiah's case (supra), the appeal is devoid of any

merits and needs to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.

The entire amount deposited by the appellant/Insurance

Company shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal for

disbursement.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KGR*