Karnataka High Court
The Manager vs Siddamma And Ors on 18 April, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3024
MFA No. 202289 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. 202289 OF 2019 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BRANCH MANAGER,
RAICHUR BRANCH,
RAICHUR.
TGROUGH ATUHORISED SIGNATORY.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SURAJ BHAVIKATTI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI DEEPAK V. BARAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally 1. SIDDAMMA W/O BARAMAPPA,
signed by
SACHIN AGE: 58 YEARS,
Location:
HIGH COURT OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
OF
KARNATAKA
2. SRI RAMAPPA S/O BARAMAPPA,
SINCE DECEASED BY IT'S L.R'S,
2A) AYYAMMA W/O RAMAPPA,
AGE: 37 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
2B) AYYAPPA S/O RAMAPPA,
AGE: 21 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3024
MFA No. 202289 of 2019
2C) CHAGAPPA S/O RAMAPPA,
AGE: 20 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
3. VEERESH S/O BARAMAPPA,
AGE: 34 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
4. NARASAPPA S/O BARAMAPPA,
AGE: 32 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
5. HULIYAPPA S/O BARAMAPPA,
AGE: 29 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
ALL ARE R/O. ROUDAKUNDA VILLAGE,
TQ: SINDHANUR,
DIST: RAICHUR-584 101.
6. PRASHANTH S/O NAGAPPA,
AGE: 25 YEARS,
OCC: DRIVER OF VEHICLE
NO. KA-36/EE-1324,
R/O: SASALAMARI VILLAGE,
TQ: SINDHANUR,
DIST: RAICHUR-584 101.
7. SHIVARAJ S/O NAGAPPA,
AGE: 40 YEARS,
OCC: OWNER OF VEHICLE
NO. KA-36/EE-1324,
R/O: SASALAMARI VILLAGE,
TQ: SINDHANUR,
DIST: RAICHUR-584 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAVINDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-5;
SRI ARUNKUMAR A, ADVOCATE FOR R-6 & R-7)
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3024
MFA No. 202289 of 2019
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT, BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.05.2019 PASSED BY THE
COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., AT
SINDHANUR IN M.V.C.NO.523/2015 AND CONSEQUENTLY BE
PLEASED TO DISCHARGE THE APPELLANT FROM ITS LIABILITY
TO PAY THE COMPENSATION AND ALSO BE PLEASED TO
REDUCE THE COMPENSATION SUITABLY, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.Suraj Bhavikatti, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of Sri.Deepak V.Barad, learned counsel on record for
appellant and also Sri.Ravindra Reddy, who is representing
respondents No.1 to 5.
2. Challenge in this appeal is the order that is
rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sindhanur, in
MVC No.523/2015 dated 06.05.2019.
3. The case of the claimants in nutshell is that on
07.12.2014, while the deceased Bharamappa (hereinafter
referred to as 'deceased' for brevity) was proceeding as a
pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA.36
ED.9348, a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA.36 EE.1324
which was driven by the 6th respondent herein came from the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3024
opposite direction at a high speed and in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased.
Due to which, the deceased and rider of the motorcycle
sustained grievous injuries. They were shifted to the
Government Hospital, Sindhanur. The deceased succumbed to
injuries during the course of treatment.
4. Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the
appellant submits that the deceased was not sitting properly on
the motorcycle on which he was traveling and that apart the
rider of the said motorcycle was riding the motorcycle in a rash
and negligent manner and due to the said reason the accident
occurred, but not due to the rash and negligent driving of the
6th respondent herein.
5. The submission made by the Ravindra Reddy,
learned counsel for the claimants on the other hand is that the
Tribunal having taken into consideration all the aspects of the
case arrived at a just conclusion and therefore, the impugned
order needs no interference.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3024
6. As rightly observed by the Tribunal, no material is
brought on record by the appellant to show that the deceased
was not sitting properly or that the rider of the motorcycle in
which the deceased was pillion rider at the time of the accident
was negligent. On the other hand by examining the said rider
as PW2, the claimants have established that, negligence lies on
the part of the rider of the motorcycle i.e. 6th respondent
herein. It is not in dispute that police after due investigation
came to a conclusion that 6th respondent was negligent. Having
observed all these aspects, the Tribunal fastened the liability
against the appellant. Thus, there are no reasons to interfere
with the findings of the Tribunal in this regard.
7. Though learned counsel for the appellant also raised
a contention with regard to the quantum of amount that is
awarded as compensation and submitted that the amount
awarded as compensation is high and exorbitant, this Court
does not find any merit in the said submission. The Tribunal
having assessed the notional income of the deceased as
Rs.6,000/- per month, applying appropriate multiplier has
awarded a sum of Rs.5,02,000/- as compensation. The said
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3024
amount can neither be termed to be unjust nor exorbitant.
Thus, the ultimate conclusion of this Court is that the appeal
lacks merits.
Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed without costs.
The amount, if any, in deposit be transmitted to the
concerned Tribunal, immediately.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AP
