Karnataka High Court
Sarvamangala W/O Guddappa Arakeri vs Manjunath S/O Lakkaegouda on 12 February, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3379
MFA No. 24957 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 102003 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.24957 OF 2012 (MV-D)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102003 OF 2015
IN M.F.A. NO.24957 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SARVAMANGALA W/O. GUDDAPPA ARAKERI
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
2. GADIGEMMA W/O. VEERABHADRAPPA DAVANAGERE,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
3. KISHOR S/O. GUDDAPPA ARAKERI,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER,
4. SHANMUKH S/O. GUDDAPPA ARAKERI,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: WEAVER,
5. SURESH S/O. GUDDAPPA ARAKERI,
Digitally
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
signed by
SAROJA
SAROJA HANGARAKI 6. LALITA D/O. GUDDAPPA ARAKERI,
HANGARAKI Date:
2024.02.19
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
16:00:02
+0530
R/O: ALL ARE RESIDENT OF TUMMINAKATTI,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. M.H. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MANJUNATH S/O. LAKKEGOUDA,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O.HEGGALDA, TQ: ARASIKERE,
DIST: HASSAN.
2. MANJEGOUDA S/O. DASEGOUDA,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF THE LORRY
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3379
MFA No. 24957 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 102003 of 2015
NO.KA.05/D-7929,
R/O.MAHADEVARAHALLI,
GADSI HOBLI, TQ: ARASIKERE,
DIST: HASSAN.
3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
ENKAY COMPLEX, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.N. RAIHCUR, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI. PRUTHVI K.S., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
APPEAL AGAINST R1 DISMISSED)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
02.02.2010 PASSED IN MVC NO.559/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.
CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AND ADDL. MACT, RANEBENNUR, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A. NO.102003 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
MANJEGOUDA S/O. DASEGOUDA,
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF THE LORRY
R/O.MAHADEVARAHALLI, GADSE HOBLI,
TQ: ARASIKERE, TQ: HASSAN DIST.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRUTHVI K.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. SARVAMANGALA W/O. GUDDAPPA ARAKERI,
AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: TUMMINAKATTI, TQ: RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI.
2. GADIGEMMA W/O. VEERABHADRAPPA DAVANAGERE,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: TUMMINAKATTI, TQ: RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI.
3. KISHOR S/O. GUDDAPPA ARAKERI,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER,
R/O: TUMMINAKATTI, TQ: RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3379
MFA No. 24957 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 102003 of 2015
4. SHANMUKH S/O. GUDDAPPA ARAKERI,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: WEAVER,
R/O: TUMMINAKATTI, TQ: RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI.
5. SURESH S/O. GUDDAPPA ARAKERI,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: TUMMINAKATTI, TQ: RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI.
6. LALITA D/O. GUDDAPPA ARAKERI,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: TUMMINAKATTI, TQ: RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI.
7. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
ENKAY COMPLEX, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI.
8. MANJUNATH
S/O. LAKKEGOUDA,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O: HEGGALDA, ARASIKERE TALUKA
DIST: HASSAN.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.H. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R6;
SRI. G.N. RAIHCUR, ADVOCATE FOR R7;
NOTICE TO R8 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
02.02.2010 PASSED IN MVC NO.559/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.
CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AND ADDL. MACT, RANEBENNUR, AWARDING
THE COMPENSATION OF RS.2,80,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE
RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS
REALIZATION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3379
MFA No. 24957 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 102003 of 2015
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.M.H.Patil, learned counsel for the
appellants - claimants and Sri.G.N.Raichur and Sri.Pruthvi
K.S., learned counsels for the respondents.
2. Though these appeals are listed for admission,
with the consent of both parties, they are taken up for
final disposal.
3. These two appeals arise out of judgment and
award passed in MVC No.559/2007 on the file of Additional
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranebennur dated
02.02.2010.
4. Admitted facts of the cases are as under:
4.1 Guddappa lost his life in a road traffic accident
that occurred on 17.06.2007 near old sawmill,
Tumminakatti at about 8.30 a.m. involving a lorry bearing
No.KA-05/D-7929.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3379
4.2 Claimants being the dependants laid a claim
under Section 166 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act for
awarding suitable compensation.
5. Claim petition, on contest, came to be allowed
in part by awarding compensation in a sum of
Rs.2,80,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the
date of petition till realization.
6. Liability is fastened on to the owner of the lorry
though the lorry was duly insured on the ground that the
driver of the said lorry did not possess valid driving licence
as on the date of accident.
7. Being aggrieved by fastening of liability on the
owner of the lorry, owner is in appeal.
8. Being aggrieved by inadequacy of
compensation, claimants are also in appeal.
9. Sri.M.H.Patil and Sri.Pruthvi K.S., learned
counsels reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3379
memorandums, sought for modification of the judgment
and award.
10. Per contra, Sri.G.N.Raichur, learned counsel for
the respondent - Insurance Company supported the
impugned judgment by contending that as the driver of
the lorry did not possess valid driving licence, Insurance
Company is not liable to pay compensation.
11. Having heard the parties, this Court perused
the material on record meticulously.
12. On such perusal of material on record,
admittedly deceased was aged 82 years and he was a
pensioner. His wife who is claimant No.1 is continued to
receive the pension.
13. Other claimants are major persons and were
not dependant on the income of deceased. Therefore,
hardly there is any scope for enhancement of
compensation.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3379
14. Since the driver of the lorry did not possess
valid driving licence as on the date of accident, there is no
scope for shifting liability on the Insurance Company as
non-possessing a valid driving licence is a fundamental
breach of policy conditions.
15. In view of the foregoing discussion, following
order is passed:
ORDER
(i) Both appeals are 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
by the owner within four weeks from today.
Sd/-
JUDGE
