Karnataka High Court
Holabasayya S/O Sannholabasayya Mooti vs Appanna S/O Ningappa Mugalolli on 6 February, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2631
MFA No. 100876 of 2014
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.100876 OF 2014 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
HOLABASAYYA
S/O. SANNHOLABASAYYA MOOTI,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF VEHICLE TT UNIT,
R/O: NEERBUDIHAL VILLAGE, TQ: BADAMI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. HARISH S.MAIGUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. APPANNA
S/O. NINGAPPA MUGALOLLI,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: SHEPARD,
R/O: NEERBUDHIHAL VILLAGE,
TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
Digitally
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
signed by
BHARATHI
BHARATHI H M
MELLIGERI COMPLEX, BAGALKOT.
HM Date:
2024.02.21
12:00:31
+0530
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.S. KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. PRAKASH N.HOSAMANE, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:27.12.2013, PASSED IN
MVC.NO.61/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER MACT NO.III,
BAGALKOT, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.1,04,218/-
WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALISATION.
THIS M.F.A., COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2631
MFA No. 100876 of 2014
JUDGMENT
Though the matter is listed for admission, by consent of
parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. Heard Shri. Harish S. Maigur, learned counsel for
the appellant, Shri. S. S. Koliwad, learned counsel for
respondent No.2-Insurance Company and Shri. Prakash N.
Hosamane, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
3. Owner of the Tractor and Trailer bearing
registration No.KA-29/TA-3504, 3505 and 3506 (for short
'T.T.Unit'), is in appeal challenging the validity of judgment and
award passed in MVC No.61/2012 dated 27.12.2013 on the file
of Member MACT No.III, Bagalkote.
4. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for
disposal of the present appeal are as under:
4.1. On 07.11.2010 Appanna was proceeding on a
bicycle along with Shri. Hanamant who is the relative. At that
juncture, they met with a road traffic accident involving
T.T.Unit as aforesaid and they got injured. They were shifted
to hospital and therefore, they laid a claim for awarding the
compensation.
5. Claim petition, on contest came to be allowed by
fastening the liability on the owner of the T.T.Unit.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2631
6. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation
and fastening the liability on the owner of the T.T.Unit, the
present appeal is filed.
7. Shri. Harish S. Maigur, learned counsel for the
appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal
memorandum vehemently contended that the Tribunal has not
properly taken into consideration the material evidence placed
on record and wrongly fastened the liability on the appellant
and sought for allowing the appeal.
8. He also contended that the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side
and sought for modification of the quantum of compensation.
9. Per contra, Shri. S. S. Koliwad, learned counsel for
respondent No.2-Insurance Company supported the impugned
judgment.
10. So also counsel for claimant has supported the
impugned judgment insofar as, the quantum of compensation
and submitted that suitable orders be passed with regard to the
liability aspect is concerned.
11. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court
perused the material on record meticulously.
12. On such perusal of material on record, it is crystal
clear that the claimant who is the second respondent in the
present appeal got injured in a road traffic accident involving
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2631
T.T. Unit as aforesaid when he was proceeding on a bicycle on
07.11.2010. He has been awarded compensation in a sum of
Rs.1,04,218/-.
13. Claimant has not preferred any appeal challenging
the adequacy of the compensation. Therefore, in so far as the
claimant is concerned same has become final.
14. Further, taking note of the injuries sustained by the
claimant and material evidence placed on record, this Court is
of the considered opinion that grant of Rs.1,04,218/- is just
and proper.
15. Now coming to the question of main contention of
the appellant that fastening the liability on the owner of
T.T.Unit whether correct or not?
16. According to the learned counsel for the appellant,
the learned Trial Judge erred in fastening the liability on the
owner of the T.T. Unit.
17. Per contra, Shri. S. S. Koliwad, learned counsel for
respondent No.2 supports the impugned judgment by
contending that the driver did not have the proper driving
license and he has been prosecuted for non holding the driving
license for involving Section 3 of Act, in the charge sheet.
18. Admittedly, the driving license is not produced by
the driver or the owner of the T.T. Unit. Even before this Court
there is not material to show that the driver of the T.T.Unit had
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2631
a valid driving license. Therefore, there is a clear violation of
the policy conditions.
19. Under such circumstances,, there was no other
alternative left open to the Tribunal except to fastened the
liability on the owner of the T.T. Unit.
20. Accordingly, even after re-appreciation of the
material evidence placed on record, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the appeal grounds are hardly sufficient
to interfere with the well reasoned order of the Tribunal.
21. Accordingly, the following order is passed:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is meritless and hereby
dismissed.
(ii) Amount in deposit is ordered to be
transmitted to tribunal.
(iii) Balance amount of compensation to be
deposited within four weeks from
today.
Sd/-
JUDGE
