Karnataka High Court
Smt. Tayavva W/O Basalingappa ... vs Shri Ramesh S/O Satyappa Ringane on 4 April, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6161
MFA No. 104834 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 104834 OF 2023 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. TAYAVVA W/O. BASALINGAPPA YARAGATTI,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK.
2. SHRI. BASALINGAPPA BASAVANTAPPA YARAGATTI,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
3. SUPRIYA D/O. BASALINGAPPA YARAGATTI,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
ALL ARE R/O. H.NO.169, MARADI SHIVAPUR,
TALUKA: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591312.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI. RAMESH S/O. SATYAPPA RINGANE,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. N.NO.193, NADIVESH MAIN ROAD,
MATH GADHINGLAJ, TALUKA: GADHINGLAJ,
DIST: KOLHAPUR-416502.
Digitally signed
by JAGADISH T R 2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY,
Location: HIGH R/BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
COURT OF MARUTI GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001.
KARNATAKA ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJIV D. JADHAV, ADV. FOR R1;
SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLE ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
31.08.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO.1616/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE IX
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER ADDL.
MACT BELAGAVI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6161
MFA No. 104834 of 2023
JUDGMENT
Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the
consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up
for final disposal.
2. This appeal is filed by the claimants challenging
the saddling of liability on the owner of the offending vehicle
as well as seeking enhancement of compensation, being
aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 31.08.2023
passed in MVC.No.1616/2021 by the IX Addl. District &
Sessions Judge and Member, Addl.MACT., Belagavi (for
short, 'Tribunal').
3. Heard Sri.Harish S.Maigur, learned counsel
appearing for the appellants/claimants, Sri.Rajiv D.Jadhav,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/owner of
the offending vehicle and Smt.Preeti Shashank, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/Insurance
Company.
4. Sri.Harish S.Maigur, learned counsel appearing
for the appellants/claimants submits that the Tribunal has
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6161
committed grave error in saddling the liability on the
respondent No.1/owner of the offending vehicle on the
ground that, as on the date of the accident, the offending
vehicle was not having a permit. He further submits that,
subsequently, the permit has been renewed, hence, the
liability has to be saddled on the respondent No.2/Insurance
Company. He submits that the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is required to be re-assessed appropriately by
allowing the appeal.
5. Per contra, Smt. Preeti Shashank, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company
supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal
and submits that, as on the date of the accident, the permit
was not renewed, later it might have been renewed,
however, that permit is in respect of the State of
Maharashtra, but the accident has taken place near Gokak
within the State of Karnataka, hence, there is a clear
violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence,
saddling of the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle
is justified. She submits that the award of compensation by
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6161
the Tribunal on the other heads is also just and proper,
which does not call for enhancement. Thus, she seeks to
dismiss the appeal.
6. Sri.Rajiv D.Jadhav, learned counsel appearing for
the respondent No.1/owner of the offending vehicle submits
that the permit was renewed by the owner subsequently,
hence, the liability is required to be saddled on the Insurance
Company by exonerating the liability of the owner.
7. I have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel appearing for the parties. Meticulously perused the
material available on record.
8. It is not in dispute that in a road accident dated
17.03.2021, one Sri.Manjunath Yaragatti succumbed to the
injuries and the claim petition is filed by the dependents of
the deceased Manjunath. The Tribunal after considering the
evidence available on record, recorded the finding that, as on
the date of the accident, there was a violation of the terms
and conditions of the policy as the permit was not renewed.
Though the copy of the permit is made available by the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6161
learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants, the
said permit clearly indicates that it is renewed and the
vehicle is permissible to ply within the State of Maharashtra
only, hence, there is a clear violation of the terms and
conditions of the policy. Therefore, saddling of the liability on
the owner of the offending vehicle is upheld. However, this
Court directs the respondent No.2/Insurance Company to
pay the compensation amount and recover the same from
the owner of the offending vehicle.
9. Insofar as the award of compensation is
concerned, the Tribunal is justified in awarding compensation
under the head of loss of dependency, hence, the same is
unaltered.
10. Insofar as the award of compensation under the
heads of 'loss of consortium', 'loss of estate' and
'transportation of dead body and funeral expenses' is
concerned, the appellants/claimants are entitled to
Rs.44,000/- each under the head of 'loss of consortium',
Rs.16,500/- under the head of 'loss of estate' and
Rs.16,500/- under the head of 'transportation of dead body
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6161
and funeral expenses'. Thus, the claimants would be entitled
to modified compensation on the following heads:
Particulars Amount
(in Rs.)
Loss of dependency 25,95,672/-
Loss of estate 16,500/-
Transportation of dead body and 16,500/-
funeral expenses
Loss of consortium (Rs.44,000 X 3 1,32,000/-
dependants)
Total 27,60,672/-
Thus, the claimants would be entitled to total
compensation of Rs.27,60,672/- as against Rs.26,60,672/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
11. This Court uphelds the finding of the Tribunal with
regard to the saddling of the liability on the respondent
No.1/owner of the offending vehicle by directing the
respondent No.2/Insurance Company to pay the entire
compensation amount along with interest to the claimants
and liberty is reserved to the respondent No.2/Insurance
Company to recover the same from the respondent
No.1/owner of the offending vehicle.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6161
12. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
a) Appeal stands allowed in part.
b) The impugned judgment and award of the
Tribunal is modified to an extent that the
claimants would be entitled to total
compensation of Rs.27,60,672/- as
against Rs.26,60,672/- awarded by the
Tribunal.
c) The enhanced compensation amount shall
carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of petition till the date of
payment.
d) The respondent No.2/Insurance Company to
pay the entire compensation amount along
with interest to the claimants and liberty is
reserved to the respondent No.2/Insurance
Company to recover the same from the
respondent No.1/owner of the offending
vehicle.
e) Apportionment, deposit and disbursement
shall be made as per the award of the
Tribunal.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6161
f) Registry to transmit the records, if any, to
the Tribunal, forthwith.
g) Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RH
Ct-an
