Karnataka High Court
Sandeep Ramesh Rane vs Shridhar Balkrishna Mirajkar on 6 February, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2526
MFA No. 22849 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.22849 OF 2013 (MV)
BETWEEN:
SRI. SANDEEP S/O RAMESH RANE,
AGE : MAJOR, (CORRECT AGE NOT KNOWN),
OCC : BUSINESS,
R/O. RAMNAGAR, TALUK: KHANAPUR,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ABHISHEK B.MAREPPAGOL, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. MADANAMOHAN M.KHANNUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. SHRIDHAR S/O. BALKRISHNA MIRJAKAR,
AGE:22 YEARS, OCC:TRUCK CLEANER (NOW NIL),
R/O. SUTAGATTI, TALUK: BAILHONGAL-591102,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
SINCE DECEASED BY LRs
1(A) SUGANDHA W/O. BALKRISHNA MIRJAKAR,
AGE:50 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. SUTAGATTI, TALUK:BAILHONGA-591102,
Digitally
DIST:BELAGAVI.
signed by
BHARATHI
BHARATHI H M
HM Date:
2. THE MANAGER,
2024.02.17
12:20:38
+0530
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT CLUB ROAD,
BELAGAVI-590016.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R.R. MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. R.C. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A))
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT 1988,
AGAINST JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:23.08.2011, PASSED IN
MVC.NO.1649/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND MACT-V, BELAGAVI, AND DISMISS THE
CLAIM PETITION, IN THE INTEREST AND JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2526
MFA No. 22849 of 2013
THIS M.F.A., COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Though the matter is listed for admission, by consent of
parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. Heard Shri. Abhishek B. Mareppagol representing
Shri. M. M. Khannur, learned counsel for appellant and Shri. R.
R. Mane, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1(a) is absent.
4. Present appeal is filed by the owner of the vehicle
Truck bearing registration No.KA-22/A-7520 challenging the
validity of judgment and award passed in MVC No.1649/2010
dated 23.08.2011 on the file of IV Additional District and
Sessions Judge and MACT-V, Belagavi.
5. The facts in brief which are necessary for disposal
of the present appeal are as under:
5.1. Shri. Shridhar Balkrishna Mirajkar, who travelled in
a Truck bearing registration No.KA-22/A-7520 met with a road
traffic accident occurred on 27.12.2009 at about 10.45 p.m.,
and got injured.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2526
5.2. He claims himself as the cleaner of the said Truck
and therefore, laid a claim for awarding suitable compensation.
6. Claim petition on contest came to be allowed in a
sum of Rs.2,15,400/- recoverable from the owner of the Truck
as the claimant failed to prove that he was cleaner in the lorry
but, the Tribunal has held that he was a gratuitous passenger.
7. Being aggrieved by the same, the owner has
preferred the present appeal.
8. Shri. Abhishek B. Mareppagol, learned counsel for
the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal
memorandum vehemently contended that the material on
record has not been proper appreciated by the learned Trial
Judge in the Tribunal and sought for allowing the appeal.
9. He further contended that the owner of the lorry
had paid the additional premium and therefore, the Tribunal
ought not to have fastened the liability on the appellant and
sought for allowing the appeal.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance
Company of offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.KA-
22/A-7520 Shri. R. R. Mane, vehemently contended that the
Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that the claimant
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2526
was not a cleaner in the lorry but he was a student and he was
a gratuitous passenger.
11. He further pointed out that the claimant has
admitted in his cross examination that he does not know the
name of the owner of the lorry. If the claimant is to be
construed as cleaner in the lorry atleast he should have known
the name of the owner of the lorry if not for any other material
evidence on record and therefore, he sought for dismissal of
the appeal.
12. Original claimant died and therefore, his legal
representatives have been brought on record and Shri. R. C.
Patil, learned counsel represents No.R1(a). He is not present
today to address the arguments.
13. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, this
Court perused the material on record meticulously.
14. On such perusal of the material on record, it is
crystal clear that the claimant failed to make out a case that he
was a cleaner in the said lorry.
15. The material evidence on record have been
discussed at length in the impugned judgment by the learned
Trial Judge by quoting the cross examination of the claimant
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2526
wherein he has specifically admitted that he does not know the
name of the owner of the lorry. However, he has stated the
name of only driver of the lorry as Ramesh Malannavar.
16. If at all, the claimant is appointed by the appellant
as a cleaner, there should be some material on record to show
that he has been appointed by the appellant as the cleaner of
the lorry.
17. Further, appellant herein did not choose to contest
the claim petition before the Trial Court got himself examined
before the Court to establish that the claimant is actually the
cleaner in the lorry.
18. Under such circumstances, the Tribunal was right in
assessing the quantum of compensation well as fastening the
liability on the owner of the lorry as there was a clear violation
of permit conditions inasmuch as, the claimant was a gratuitous
passenger and not a cleaner of the lorry.
19. In view of the above foregoing discussion, the
following order is passed:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is meritless and hereby
dismissed.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2526
(ii) Amount in deposit is ordered to be
transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement
in accordance with law.
(iii) Balance amount is to be deposited
within four weeks from today.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMM
