Karnataka High Court
Smt.Gangamma vs Mr.Rajagopala.S on 19 October, 2022
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
M.F.A.NO.8212/2014 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SMT. GANGAMMA,
W/O CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT CHIKKATHATHAMANGALA,
MADIBELE POST,
VIJAYAPURA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI GOPAL KRISHNA N, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR. RAJAGOPALA. S,
S/O SIDDALINGAPPA,
MAJOR IN AGE,
RESIDING AT NO.3,
UGANAVADI VILLAGE AND HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BANGALORE-560099.
2. THE BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO.31, GROUND FLOOR,
TBR TOWER, 1ST CROSS,
NEAR BANGALORE STOCK EXCHANGE,
NEW MISSION ROAD,
BANGALORE-560027.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R2,
R1 SERVED)
2
THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.04.2014 PASSED
IN MVC NO.6479/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSE JUDGE & XXIV ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES, MAYO HALL UNIT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and
award dated 28.04.2014, passed in M.V.C.No.6479/2011, on the
file of the V Additional Small Cause Judge and XXIV ACMM,
Member, MACT, Court of Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore ('the
Tribunal' for short).
3. The factual matrix of the case of the claimant before
the Tribunal is that on the date of the accident, the claimant was
traveling in a goods vehicle as coolie and in view of the
negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle, the accident
was occurred and sustained injuries.
4. The short question involved in the matter is with
regard to the liability fastened on the insured and this appeal is
filed by the claimant questioning the same. The Tribunal
fastened the liability on the insured on the ground that the
claimant was traveling as a passenger in the goods vehicle. No
doubt, the Insurance Company examined R.W.1 and in his
affidavit, he claims that it was a goods vehicle and respondent
No.1 was not allowed to carry passengers in the vehicle. In the
chief evidence, P.W.1 reiterated that she was proceeding in the
vehicle as coolie and in the cross-examination, no doubt, it is
elicited that there were 15 persons and also elicited that the
person who was having conscious has given the complaint.
5. The main contention of the Insurance Company is
that the claimant was traveling as a passenger and except the
suggestion that there were 37 persons in the vehicle, no cross-
examination was made to the effect that P.W.1 was traveling as
a passenger in the vehicle. R.W.1 in the cross-examination
admits that no claim petitions are filed except this claim against
the Insurance Company. However, he admits that the vehicle
was a transport vehicle. In order to substantiate the contention
that she was traveling as a passenger, no material is placed
before the Court. I have already pointed out that no cross-
examination is made to that effect, except contending that she
was a passenger. On perusal of Ex.P.1(a), it is clear that on the
date of the accident itself the complaint was given, wherein it is
stated that they were proceeding in the jeep as coolie to
Devanahalli and in the cross-examination not disputed that they
were not traveling in the vehicle as coolie. When such being the
case, even though the policy does not disclose for having
collected the premium for coolie, Rule 100 of the Karnataka
Motor Vehicles, Rules, 1989 ('MV Rules' for short) states that, in
a goods vehicle, total number of persons so carried shall not be
more than three persons and when R.W.1 categorically admits in
the cross-examination that only one claim is made in respect of
this accident, the Tribunal ought not to have fastened the
liability on the insured and the Tribunal lost sight of Rule 100 of
the MV Rules while fastening the liability on the insured. Hence,
there is a force in the contention of learned counsel for the
claimant that the liability fastened on the insured is erroneous
and the same requires to be modified.
6. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the
Tribunal dated 28.04.2014, passed in
M.V.C.No.6479/2011, is modified setting aside
the liability fastened on the insured and the
liability is fastened on the Insurance Company.
(iii) The Insurance Company is directed to pay the
compensation amount with interest at the rate
of 6% per annum within six weeks from today.
(iv) The Registry is directed to transmit the records
to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MD
