Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Lalitamma @ Umashree W/O on 14 February, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3664
MFA No. 24512 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.24512 OF 2012 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
KESHWAPUR, N.K. COMPLEX, HUBLI.
REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.S. KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. LALITAMMA @ UMASHREE
W/O SHANTAVEERAYYA BRAHMANAMATHM,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD,
2. GAVISHIDDAYYA
S/O. SHANTAVEERAYYA BRAHMANAMATHM,
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
3. KUMARI. JYOTI
D/O. SHANTAVEERAYYA BRAHMANAMATHM,
Digitally
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
signed by
SAMREEN R/O: BISNAHALLI, TQ and DIST: KOPPAL.
SAMREEN AYUB
AYUB DESHNUR
DESHNUR Date:
4. SHRISHAILAPPA SANGAPPA HOOLI,
2024.02.23
16:31:40 AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
+0530
R/O: BASAVESHWAR ROAD, SHAPUR PETH,
OPP: SARASWATI RESTAURANT, GADAG.
(OWNER OF THE MAHENDRA TEMPO NO.KA-26/1699)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.N. NARASAMMANAVAR, FOR ADVOCATE R1-R3;
R4 SERVED)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:04.07.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.90/2010 ON
THE FILE OF COURT DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT., GADAG, AWARDING THE
COMPENSATION OF RS.4,38,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6%
P.A,. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALISATION.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3664
MFA No. 24512 of 2012
THIS M.F.A., COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.S.S.Koliwad and Sri.G.N.Narasammanar,
learned counsel for the parties.
2. In this appeal there is a challenge as to the validity
of judgment and award passed in MVC No.90/10 pending
on the file of the District Judge and Addl. MACT, Gadag
dated 04.07.2012.
3. Facts in brief are as under:
3.1 Wife and children of Shanthaveeraiah have laid a claim
under Section 166 of MV Act seeking awarding of
appropriate compensation on account of accidental death
of Shantaveerayya on 03.01.1999 at about 1.30 p.m. on
Mundargi to Koppal road near land of Sajjanavar
3.2 Charge sheet came to be filed against the dirver of the
Mahendra Temp.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3664
3.3 Claim petition was resisted by filing detailed written
statement including the plea that driver was not
possessing valid driving license.
3.4. Tribunal on contest allowed the claim petition in a
sum of Rs.4,38,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the
date of petition till realization and directed the insurance
company to pay the compensation and recover the same
from the owner of the offending vehicle.
4. Being aggrieved by the same, insurance company is
in appeal.
5. Sri.S.S.Koliwad, learned counsel for he appellant
vehemently contended that tribunal has misdirected itself
in fastening the liability on the insurance company to pay
the compensation and recover the same from the owner of
the Mahendra Tempo as the driver was not holding proper
driving license.
6. Per contra, Sri.G.N.Narasammanavar supported the
impugned judgment.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3664
7. Tribunal taking note of the relevant aspects of the
matter placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Kusum Latha Vs Satbir & other
reported in 2011 ACJ 926 fastened the liability on the
insurance company to pay the adjudged compensation at
the first instance and recover the same from the owner of
the offending vehicle.
8. At the relevant point of time, the principle of law
enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court has been followed
by the tribunal implicitly. Accordingly, hardly there is any
scope for interference on the ground of liability.
9. Now, insofar as quantum of compensation, if the
principle of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs.
Pranay Sethi and Others reported in AIR 2017 SC
5157, claimants would be entitled for higher
compensation. Accordingly, there is no scope for
interference.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3664
10. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i) Appeal is merit less and is hereby dismissed.
ii) No order as to costs.
iii) Amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted
to the tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HMB
