Karnataka High Court
Nagappa S/O Lokanagouda Police Patil vs Parashuram Rajaram Patil on 6 February, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2637
MFA No. 23453 of 2012
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.23453 OF 2012 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
PARASHURAM R.PATIL,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: KAPILESHWAR ROAD, BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. A.B. KONI, ADVOCATE AND
SRI. S.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. NINGAMMA
LATE RAMAPPA GOOLAPPANAVAR,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
Digitally R/O: BUDIHAL, TQ AND DIST: KOPPAL.
signed by
SAMREEN
SAMREEN AYUB
AYUB DESHNUR
DESHNUR Date: 2. SHRI. BHARMAPPA
2024.02.15
13:27:35
+0530
S/O. LATE RAMANNA GOOLAPPANAVAR,
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: AGRI.,
R/O: BUDIHAL, TQ AND DIST: KOPPAL.
3. SHRI. SEEMANNA
S/O. LATE RAMANNA GOOLAPPANAVAR
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: AGRI.,
R/O: BUDIHAL, TQ AND DIST: KOPPAL.
4. MUSTAFA S/O. MOULASAB,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O: ANKALGI, TQ: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2637
MFA No. 23453 of 2012
5. THE MANAGER
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NEAR BASAVESHWAR CIRCLE, KOPPAL.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.S. JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR R5;
NOTICE TO R1, R2, R3 AND R4 SERVED)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 11.01.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.39/2011 ON
THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL.
MACT, KOPPAL, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION
RS.3,47,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A.,
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL KITS DEPOSIT.
THIS M.F.A., COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.A.B.Koni, learned counsel for the appellant
and Sri.S.S.Joshi, learned counsel for respondent -
Insurance Company.
2. Owner is in appeal challenging the judgment
and award passed in MVC No.39/2011 on the file of
Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Koppal dated
11.01.2012.
3. The Claimants, Ningamma, Bharamappa and
Seemanna filed a claim petition under Section 166 of
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2637
Motor Vehicles Act claiming that they are dependants of
deceased Ramanna who boarded mini lorry bearing No.KA-
22/A-6995 along with vegetables and co-labourers on
28.08.2008 for transportation of the same from Belagavi
to Koppal. The lorry met with an accident near Sharama
petrol bunk at about 11:30 p.m. and Ramanna lost his life.
4. Driver of lorry was charge sheeted. Charge
sheet is not challenged by the driver of lorry nor the
owner.
5. Claim petition was resisted by the Insurance
Company contending that the deceased was a gratuitous
passenger and therefore, Insurance Company is not liable
to pay compensation.
6. The Tribunal allowed the claim petition in a sum
of Rs.3,47,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the
date of petition till realisation.
7. Claimants have not filed any appeal seeking
enhancement.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2637
8. The owner of the lorry, who has been fastened
with liability is the appellant herein.
9. Sri.A.B.Koni, learned counsel for the appellant
reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum,
contended that the deceased travelled in the lorry along
with the goods and therefore Insurance Company is liable
to pay compensation.
10. Per contra, Sri.S.S.Joshi, learned counsel for
the Insurance Company contended that there is clear
finding of the Tribunal that deceased did not travel with
the goods and there is no material to show that deceased
had travelled along with the vegetables inasmuch as the
contents of spot panchanama and other police papers do
not make out a case that deceased was travelling along
with goods. Therefore, he has been rightly termed as
gratuitous passenger.
11. In view of the rival contentions of the parties,
this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2637
12. On such perusal of material on record, it is
crystal clear that claimants were not able to place on
record any evidence to show that deceased was travelling
in the said lorry along with vegetables as on the date of
accident.
13. PW.2 is an eyewitness to the incident. He has
turned hostile in the criminal case and not supported case
of claimants that deceased was travelling along with
goods.
14. Under such circumstances, Tribunal recorded a
categorical finding that though deceased has lost his life in
the accident, since there is no material to show that he
was travelling in the lorry along with goods as on the date
of accident, exonerated liability of Insurance Company and
fastened liability on the owner.
15. Even on re-appreciation of material on record,
this Court does not find any legal infirmity or perversity in
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2637
recording a finding by the Tribunal that it is the owner
(appellant) who is liable to pay compensation.
16. In view of the foregoing discussion, following
order is passed:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is meritless and hereby dismissed.
(ii) Amount in deposit is ordered to be
transmitted to the concerned Tribunal for
disbursement in accordance with law.
(iii) Balance amount is ordered to be deposited
within four weeks from today.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SH
