Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Mahendra S/O Hanumanthappa on 22 November, 2023
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13709
MFA No. 22548 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.22548/2011 (MV)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
P.B.NO.88, 118/7947,
2ND FLOOR, RUB BUILDING,
A.A.CIRCLE, B.H.C.ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA,
REP. BY B.R.SHANKAR,
S/O. C.RAMAIAH, AGE:47 YEARS,
OCC: ASSISTANT MANAGER,
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
HUBBALLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI S. V. YAJI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by
BHARATHI 1. MAHENDRA S/O. HANUMANTHAPPA,
HM
AGED: 37 YEARS, OCC:NIL,
R/O: CHIKKALAKERE, TQ:CHENNAGIRI,
NOW AT C/O: BASAVARAJ KAMADOD,
R/O: CHALAGERI, TQ:RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI.
2. SUNILKUMAR @ JAYANNA
S/O. RAJASHEKARAPPA,
OCC:DRIVER, POST:ANVERI,
TQ: BHADRAVATHI, DIST: SHIMOGA.
3. B.G.JAGADISHGOUDAR
S/O. M.G.BASAVARAJ,
AGE:45 YEARS, OWNER OF MINI LORRY
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13709
MFA No. 22548 of 2011
NO. KA-14/A-1636,
POST:ANVERI, TQ: BHADRAVATHI,
DIST: SHIVAMOGGA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ANJANEYA M, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 AND R3 - NOTICE SERVED.)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.01.2011, PASSED BY
HE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, RANEBENNUR, IN MVC NO.357/2007 BY
ALLOWING THIS APPEAL BY DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION
AGAINST THIS APPELLANT AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the insurance company
challenging the judgment and award dated 07.01.2011,
passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT,
Ranebennur, in MVC No.357/2007, questioning the liability
fixed on it and to reduce the compensation.
2. The factum of accident and injuries sustained
by the claimant in the accident are not in dispute in this
case. Whether the appellant insurance company is liable to
pay compensation is the only question of dispute in this
case.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13709
3. Heard the arguments and perused the material
placed before the Court.
4. It is the contention of the appellant insurance
company that the claimant along with others was
travelling in the mini lorry as unauthorized passenger and
the said persons are not covered in Ex.R.1 insurance
policy. Except the oral evidence of the officer of the
insurance company, there is no other evidence to show
that the claimant has travelled as unauthorized passenger
in the lorry. Whereas in the complaint Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.1
FIR, it is proved that the claimant and other coolie workers
were engaged as coolie to load areca nut crop. Therefore
the claimant has travelled in the lorry not as unauthorized
passenger but as a coolie for the purpose of transporting
areca nut crop. To prove contrary, there is no other
evidence by the appellant insurance company. Therefore it
is proved that the claimant has travelled in the lorry as a
coolie to load and transport areca nut. Hence the said risk
of the coolie in the lorry is covered as per Ex.R.1 insurance
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13709
policy, in which the risk of two coolies is covered.
Therefore under these circumstances it cannot be said that
the claimant has travelled as a gratuitous passenger.
Therefore the appeal is liable to be dismissed on this
count.
5. The other contention of the appellant that the
compensation awarded is on higher side. The claimant has
sustained fracture of pubic rami and other injuries. The
claimant is a coolie by profession. Therefore the pubic rami
is a lot of bearing bone and the claimant not only suffered
disability of leg, naturally it affects the earning capacity of
the claimant. The doctor assessed 30% of physical
disability and the tribunal taken 20% as functional
disability. The compensation awarded by the tribunal
under other heads is on lesser side. Therefore by
considering the overall amount of compensation awarded
by the tribunal it is found to be just and proper. Therefore,
there are no grounds available for reducing the quantum
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13709
of compensation. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be
dismissed.
6. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal filed by the insurance
company is dismissed.
ii) The judgment and award dated
07.01.2011, passed by the Senior Civil Judge
and Addl. MACT, Ranebennur, in MVC
No.357/2007, is hereby confirmed.
iii) The amount in deposit shall be
transmitted to the tribunal.
iv) No order as to costs.
SD/-
JUDGE
MRK
CT-ASC
