Karnataka High Court
The Manager vs Eravva W/O Gurubasayya Hiremath And Ors on 18 April, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3092
MFA No. 200077 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200077 OF 2019 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER,
HDFC GENERAL INS. CO. LTD.,
HEBBALLI,
(NOW REPRESENTED BY
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
HDFC ERGO GEN, INS. CO. LTD.,
HUBLI)
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SANGANABASAVA B.PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally 1. ERAVVA W/O GURUBASAYYA HIREMATH
signed by
SACHIN DEAD
Location:
HIGH COURT RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 5 HEREIN ARE THE
OF
KARNATAKA LEGAL HEIRS OF RESPONDENT NO.1.
2. SHIVAYYA
S/O GURUBASAYYA HIREMATH,
AGE: 30 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
3. RACHAYYA
S/O GURUBASAYYA HIREMATH,
AGE: 29 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3092
MFA No. 200077 of 2019
4. BASALINGAYYA
S/O GURUBASAYYA HIREMATH,
AGE: 27 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
5. ANANDAYYA
S/O GURUBASAYYA HIREMATH,
AGE: 26 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT,
ALL R/O. EVANAGI,
TQ: BASAVAN BAGEWADI.
6. K.S.SHARAT S/O SHIVARAMU,
NO.31, KENCHANAHALLI VILLAGE,
POST: HERAGU, TQ: HASSAN,
DIST: HASSAN-573 201.
7. THE MANAGER,
SHRIRAM GENERAL INS. CO. LTD.,
E-8, INDUSTRIAL AREA,
JAIPUR-302 001, RAJASTHAN.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI BABU H.METAGUDDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 TO R-5;
V/O DTD. 10.01.2023 R-2 TO R-5 ARE LR'S OF DECEASED R-1;
NOTICE TO R-6 IS SERVED;
SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-7)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO
ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.11.2018 IN MVC
NO.111/2012 PASSED BY THE ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MEMBER MACT-IX, AT BASAVANA BAGEWADI IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3092
MFA No. 200077 of 2019
JUDGMENT
Heard Smt.Preeti Patil Melkundi, learned counsel for
the appellant, Sri Babu H.Metagudda, learned counsel who
is representing respondent Nos.2 to 5 and Sri Subhash
Mallapur, who is representing respondent No.7.
2. Challenge in this appeal is the order that is
rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IX,
Basavana Bagewadi in M.V.C.No.111/2012 dated
15.11.2018.
3. Submitting that the appellant is not liable to
pay any compensation Smt.Preeti Patil Melkundi states
that the offending lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-12/A-121 was
not insured with the appellant at the relevant period.
Learned counsel states that the accident occurred on
18.11.2011 and no policy issued by the appellant was in
force by the said date. Learned counsel also contends that
only basing on the averments in the policy that is
produced by respondent No.7 the Tribunal fastened the
liability against the appellant which is unjustifiable.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3092
Learned counsel also states that no opportunity was given
to the appellant to adduce evidence in this regard. On the
other hand, Sri Babu H.Metagudda, states that though
opportunity was accorded, the appellant did not adduce
any evidence with regard to its liability and therefore, the
Tribunal has rightly fastened liability against the appellant.
A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Tribunal
only basing on the contents of Ex.R.1-Insurance Policy
that was issued by respondent No.7 i.e., Shriram General
Insurance Company Limited, liability was fastened against
the appellant herein i.e., HDFC General Insurance
Company. The findings of the Tribunal in this regard as
contained in para 64 of the order are as follows :-
"64. Here if at all as on the date and time of
accident if the offending Lorry was not insured with
respondent No.3 and if the policy number mentioned
above was not pertaining to the offending vehicle
then, respondent No.3 ought to have produced the
same before this Court on their behalf. However,
failure on part of respondent No.3 to produce the
insurance policy and lead evidence on their behalf
goes to show that, as on the date of accident
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3092
offending Lorry bearing No.KA-12/A-0121 was
insured with respondent No.3. Hence, adverse
inference can be drawn against respondent No.3.
Hence, from the recitals of insurance Policy
pertaining to respondent No.2 and from the silence
on part of respondent No.3 in producing the
insurance policy and so also in leading evidence, it is
clear that respondent No.3 is the insurer of offending
vehicle at the time of alleged accident. Hence,
respondent No.1 being the owner and respondent
No.3 being the insurer of the offending Lorry bearing
No.KA-12/A-0121 are jointly and severally liable to
pay the compensation to the petitioners."
4. The specific plea of the appellant is that the
appellant was not the insurer of the offending vehicle by
the date of accident and therefore the appellant is not
liable to pay any compensation. That being the case, this
Court is of the view that the matter is required to be
remanded to the Tribunal concerned with a direction to
accord opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence on
the limited aspect of issuance of policy or otherwise in
respect of the offending vehicle covering the relevant
period. Hence, the following :
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3092
ORDER
i) The order that is rendered by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal-IX, Basavana
Bagewadi in M.V.C.No.111/2012 dated
15.11.2018 is set aside so far as liability of
the appellant is concerned.
ii) The matter is remanded back to the
Tribunal for fresh consideration only to the
extent of the liability of the appellant i.e.,
HDFC General Insurance Company.
iii) The appellant, claimants and Shriram
General Insurance Company Limited be
given opportunity to adduce evidence with
regard to the liability of the appellant -
HDFC General Insurance Company Limited.
iv) On adducing such evidence, if any, the
Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter
afresh only with regard to the liability of the
appellant.
v) The matter be disposed of preferably within
a period of three months from the date of
receipt of copy of this judgment.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3092
vi) Parties are directed to make their
appearance before the Tribunal on
12.06.2024.
vii) Issuance of further notice is not required.
viii) Amount in deposit, if any, be remitted back
to the concerned Tribunal.
Accordingly, appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SN
