Anand S/O Sheshagiri Rao Hulgola vs Dr.Malatesh S/O Adiveppa Kamatar
2022 Latest Caselaw 3851 Kant

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 3851 Kant
Judgement Date : 7 March, 2022

Karnataka High Court

Anand S/O Sheshagiri Rao Hulgola vs Dr.Malatesh S/O Adiveppa Kamatar on 7 March, 2022

Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  DHARWAD BENCH
     DATED THIS THE 7 T H DAY OF MARCH, 2022
                       BEFORE
THE HON 'BLE MR.JUSTICE N .S.SANJAY GOWDA

              M.F.A.No.104628/2019 (MV)
BETWEEN:

ANAND S/O SHESHAGIRI RAO HULGOLA,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: BELLARY COMPOUND,
UB HILLS, MALAMADDI,
DHARWAD.                                 ... APPELLANT

(BY SHRI CHANDRASHEKHAR M.HOSAMANI, ADV.)

AND:

1.     DR.MALATESH S/O ADIVEPPA KAMATAR,
       AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BHMS DOCTOR,
       R/O: MALAMADDI, DHARWAD-580001.

2.     UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL
        INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
       IIND FLOOR, NO.84,
       RAMSON COMPLEX,
       P B ROAD, HOSUR,
       HUBBALLI-580029.                  ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI SUBHASH J.BADDI, ADV. FOR R2,
    NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)

      THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.07.2019
PASSED IN MVC NO.900/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, DHARWAD, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
Rs.1,93,326/- WITH INTEREST AT 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL ITS REALISATION.
                              :2:




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

                          JUDGMENT

By the impug ned award, a sum of

Rs.1,93,326/- is awarded for the injuries suffered

by the claimant, who is a doctor b y p rofession.

2. The Tribunal has fastened the liab ility

on the owner of the offending vehicle on the

ground that the vehicle was not insured.

3. Learned counsel for the ap pellant

submits that he has furnished the copy of the

Insurance Policy which covered the offending

vehicle i.e., the car bearing registration No.KA-

25/P-8422.

4. Learned counsel for the Insurance

Comp any, on instructions, submits that on

verification it has b een found that the car in

question was in fact insured and therefore, the

Insurance Company would be liable to p ay the

comp ensation. However, he submits that the

sums award ed are on the higher side and they

deserve to b e reduced.

5. At the outset, it is to be stated that this

app eal is filed only to the extent of questioning

the liab ility of the owner and therefore, the

question of red ucing the compensation award ed

cannot be gone into. Since, it is admitted that

the offend ing vehicle in question was insured, the

responsibility of satisfying the award mad e by the

Tribunal would rest on the Insurance Comp any

and not on the owner.

6. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and

it is held that the Insurance Company is liable to

satisfy the comp ensation award ed in favour of the

claimant.

7. In view of the above, I p ass the

following:

ORDER

(i) The app eal is allowed in p art,

(ii) The Judgment and Award

dated 18.07.2019 passed in

MVC No.900/2015, on the file

of the Prl. District and

Sessions Judge and MACT,

Dharwad, is hereby mod ified.

     (iii)     The                            Insurance

               Company/respondent                  No.2    is

               directed        to       deposit           the

               compensation             along         with

               interest       before    the        Tribunal

               within     a    period    of    90     days

               from     the    date     of    receipt      of

               certified        cop y         of        this

               judgment.