Sangappa And Anr vs Gundappa And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 9601 Kant

                            1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                 KALABURAGI BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2022

                         BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR


              MFA No.200158/2019 (MV)

BETWEEN:

1.     SANGAPPA S/O SIDRAMAPPA ADIHAL
       AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
       R/ HALLUR, TQ. MUDDEBIHAL,
       DIST. VIJAYAPURA

2.     IRAMMA W/O SANGAPPA ADIHAL
       AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
       R/O HALLUR, TQ MUDDEIBHAL,
       DIST. VIJAYAPUR
                                              ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. HARSHAVARDHAN R MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     GUNDAPPA SANGAPPA,
       AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS AND AGRI.,
       R/O HALLUR, TQ. MUDDEBIHAL,
       DIST. VIJAYAPUR-586101.

2.     UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
       DIVISION OFFICE, S.S.FRONT ROAD,
       VIJAYAPURA-586101.
                                          .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI J.AUGUSTIN, ADVOCATE
 R1 - SERVED)
                             2




     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND
ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION TO RS.7,00,000/- ALONG WITH
INTEREST BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT-VIII AT MUDDEBIHAL DATED
22.10.2018 IN MVC NO.84/2014.



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


                      JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellants-petitioners

under Section 173(1) of M.V.Act, challenging the

judgment and award dated 22.10.2018 passed in MVC

No.84/2014 by the Senior Civil Judge & MACT-VIII,

Muddebihal, whereby the tribunal has dismissed the

claim petition filed by the petitioners.

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 on 14.11.2012 at about 11.00 p.m., one

Bhimappa S/o Sangappa was riding the motorcycle

bearing registration No.KA-20/L-2047 belonging to

respondent No.1 with a pillion rider on the Bagalkot-

Rampur road. When he was near Achanur cross at

about 11.00 p.m., he dashed against a parked tractor

which had broken down and due to this impact,

Bhimappa sustained grievous injuries and died on the

spot. A crime was registered. It is alleged that the

deceased was hale and healthy person and engaged in

agricultural coolie work and was earning Rs.40,000/-

per year. Due to untimely death, the petitioners have

lost their bread earner. The accident has taken place

due to involvement of the vehicle owned by

respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 is the insurer of

the said vehicle. Hence, the they filed the claim

petition claiming compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-.

4. The respondent No.1 though appeared did

not contest the matter. The respondent No.2 filed

objections denying the allegations and assertions

made thereunder. He has taken all the defences

available. It is also contended that the vehicle was

owned by Hariprasad S/o: Prabhakar Kamat and the

respondent No.1 is shown to be the owner without

there being any records and the vehicle has not been

transferred in the name of respondent No.1. Hence, it

is contended that the respondent No.2 is not liable to

pay compensation and disputed the claim.

     5.      After   appreciating     the       oral   and

documentary      evidence,   the    tribunal    held   that

respondent No.1      is not the owner          and without

impleading the owner, respondent No.2 cannot be

saddled with the liability to pay compensation and

dismissed the claim petition.

6. Being aggrieved by this judgment and

award passed by the tribunal, the appellants-

petitioners have filed this appeal.

7. Heard the arguments advanced by the

learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners and

learned counsel for the respondent No.2-Insurer.

Perused the records.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants-

petitioners would contend that respondent No.1

admits his ownership and hence non transfer of the

vehicle is not fatal. Hence, he would contend that the

claim petition requires to be entertained by granting

compensation by allowing the appeal.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the

respondent No.2-Insurance Company would support

the judgment and award passed by the tribunal.

10. Having heard the arguments and perusing

the records, it is evident that the vehicle bearing

registration No.KA-20/L-2047 on which the deceased

was riding was registered in the name of Hariprasad

S/o: Prabhakar Kamat and in the evidence it is simply

stated that respondent No.1 is the owner. No RC or

certified copy of RC particulars are produced. Apart

from that, Hariprasad S/o: Prabhakar Kamat who is

RC holder is not made as necessary party. No

document has been produced to show that the vehicle

has been transferred in the name of respondent No.1.

11. Apart from that, the deceased himself was

a rider of the motorcycle. In that event also he was

stepping into the shoes of the owner and he cannot

maintain a petition as against him also. On this count

also, the claim petition bound to fail. He is not a third

party. Hence, the claim petition itself is misconceived

and the tribunal has considered all these aspects and

has rightly dismissed the claim petition. No illegality

or infirmity is forthcoming in the order of the tribunal.

Hence, the appeal is devoid of any merits and requires

to be dismissed.

12. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the

following;

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

msr