Karnataka High Court
Premavati @ Prema And Ors vs Pampapati And Anr on 24 May, 2022
Bench: Sreenivas Harish Kumar, S Rachaiah
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. RACHAIAH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.200785/2021 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. PREMAVATI @ PREMA
W/O LATE SANTOSHKUMAR MADRI,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
2. SHARNU S/O LATE SANTOSHKUMAR,
AGE: 10 YEARS,
3. BASAMMA D/O LATE SANTOSHKUMAR,
AGE: 8 YEARS,
4. DARSHAN S/O LATE SANTOSHKUMAR,
AGE: 6 YEARS,
THE APPELLANTS NO.2 TO 4 ARE MINORS,
U/G OF THEIR NATURAL MOTHER APPELLANT
NO.1.
5. BASANNA S/O SHARANAPPA MADRI,
AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & COOLIE,
2
6. MAHADEVI W/O BASANNA MADRI,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & COOLIE,
ALL ARE R/O DABARABAD SINDAGI,
TQ. & DIST: KALABURAGI-585 106.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.SHARANABASAPPA K.BABSHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. PAMPAPATI S/O BABURAO,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF VEHICLE,
R/O: BENKANHALLI, TQ. SEDAM,
DIST: KALABURAGI-585 222.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
4/4, VEER SAVARKAR MARGA,
NEAR SIDDHIVINAYAK TEMPLE,
PRABHADEVI, MUMBAI-400025.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.*MANJUNATH MALLAYYA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2 ;
R1 SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF
M.V.ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND MODIFY
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.08.2018, PASSED
BY THE IIND ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT AT
KALABURAGI, IN MVC NO.1172/2015 AND AWARD THE
COMPENSATION AMOUNT AS CLAIMED BY THE
APPELLANTS.
THIS MFA IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
S. RACHAIAH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
* Corrected vide Chamber order dtd.08.07.2022.
3
JUDGMENT
The appellants have preferred this appeal
challenging the judgment and award dated 04.08.2018
passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT
at Kalaburagi in MVC.No.1172/2015.
02. BRIEF FACTS.
It is the case of the appellants that on 14.09.2014 at
about 07.15 p.m. on Handraki to Gurumitkal road, near
Sharanappa Metre House, the husband of appellant No.1
Sri. Santoshkumar along with Shivasharanappa was
proceeding on Motorcycle bearing its Reg.No.KA-32-EE-
9821. The deceased - Santoshkumar was the rider and
Shivasharanappa was the pillion rider of the offending
motorcycle. It is alleged that the rider of the motorcycle
was rash and negligent while riding and dashed against
the bullock cart, which was coming in opposite direction.
As a result Santoshkumar sustained grievous injuries and
was killed at the spot, whereas Shivasharanappa
sustained grievous injuries. A complaint came to be lodged
and case was registered at Sedam Police Station in Crime
No.224/2014.
03. Heard Sri. Sharanabasappa K. Babashetty, the
learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. Subhash
Mallapur, the learned counsel for the Respondent No.2.
Respondent No.1 served and unrepresented.
04. Sri. Sharanabasappa K. Babashetty, the
learned counsel for the appellants contended that the
impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is
erroneous, illegal and against to the facts and
circumstances of the case.
05. The learned counsel for the appellants further
contended that the Tribunal has failed to consider the
evidence of PW.1. His evidence shows that the deceased
was the earning member of the family. He was working as
pump operator in Taluka Panchayat and earning
Rs.3,000/- per month. Further, he contended that,
because of death of male member of the family, nobody
was there to look after the family affairs. It is also further
submitted that, giving proper education to the children
and maintenance of the family was the responsibility of
the deceased. If, the deceased were to be alive, he would
have taken care of his family and also the education of the
children. Dismissal of the appeal by not considering the
evidence of P.W.1 has caused great injustice to the
dependants of the deceased.
06. It is further submission of the counsel for the
appellant that, the Tribunal while considering the
documents i.e., Exs.P.1 to 18, ignored Ex.P.6 - MVI report,
Ex.P.5 - Inquest Mahazar and also other relevant
documents pertaining to deceased - Santoshkumar. He
submitted that these documents must be considered. As
such the learned Counsel for the appellants sought to
allow the appeal by the modifying the judgment and award
passed by the Tribunal.
07. Per contra, the learned counsel Sri. Subhash
Mallapur, for the respondent No.2 while justifying the
judgment and award of the Tribunal contended that, it is
because of the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle,
the accident occurred. The Tribunal has rightly
appreciated both oral and documentary evidence and
concluded that, it is the rider of the motorcycle, who rode
the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner dashed to
the bullock cart and also sustained grievous injuries.
08. The learned counsel for the respondent further
submits that, since the owner himself was riding the
vehicle and sustained injuries and died, he cannot claim
compensation. As such, he sought to dismiss the appeal.
09. Having heard both the counsel for the
respective parties, the points which arise for our
consideration are:-
I. Whether the Tribunal is justified in
dismissing the claim petition filed by the
claimants in MVC.No.1172/2015.?
II. Whether the Appellants - claimants have
made out a ground to interfere with the
order of dismissal passed by the Tribunal?
10. On perusal of the records it appears that, on
14.09.2014 the deceased - Santoshkumar was riding a
motorcycle bearing its Reg.No.KA-32-EE-9821 and
Shivasharanappa was the pillion rider. It also appears
from the records that the said Santoshkumar was driving
the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed to a bullock cart which was coming from opposite
side. As a result both the rider and the pillion rider
sustained grievous injuries. The said Santoshkumar was
killed at the spot, whereas Shivasharanappa sustained
grievous injuries.
11. As per Section 163 - A of the Motor Vehicle
Act, there must be involvement of more than one vehicle to
claim the compensation. In this case, the deceased -
Santhoshkumar was riding his motorcycle in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed against the bullock cart,
which is not a motor vehicle. As such the Tribunal has
rightly considered the negligence on the part of the rider of
the motorcycle to dismiss the claim of the appellants.
12. It is also relevant to place reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Ramkhiladi and another V/s United India Insurance
Company and Anr. reported in 2020(2) SCC 550, where
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, an application
under section 163-A of the Act against the insurance
company by the injured/deceased of the vehicle cannot be
entertained if the vehicle is driven by injured or the
deceased himself.
13. It is also not in dispute that the Tribunal has
passed an award in favour of pillion rider for a sum of
Rs.1,86,900/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum
and against which, no appeal is filed seeking
enhancement of the compensation.
14. It is also relevant to mention that the police
registered a case against the deceased - Santhoshkumar
for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A
of IPC. Such being the fact, we are of the considered
opinion that, the Appeal deserves to be dismissed.
15, In view of the observation made above, Point
No.1 is answered in affirmative holding that, the Tribunal
is justified in dismissing the claim petition and Point No.2
is answered in negative holding that, the appellants have
not made out any grounds to interfere in the well reasoned
order passed by the Tribunal.
16. The above discussion take us to dismiss the
appeal, and ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
KJJ
