Karnataka High Court
The Branch Manager vs Renuka W/O. Hanmanth Daddimani on 16 February, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3831
MFA No. 101528 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101528 OF 2014 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER,
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO., LTD.,
HANUMASHETTY BUILDING, GORUKAL ROAD,
BIJAPUR, DIST: BIJAPUR.
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS
DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE, IIND FLOOR,
SRINATH COMPLEX, HUBLI-580029.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M.Y. KATAGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. RENUKA W/O. HANMANTH DADDIMANI,
Digitally signed
SAMREEN
by SAMREEN
AYUB
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
AYUB DESHNUR
R/O. SANAL, TQ: JAMKHANDI,
DESHNUR Date:
2024.02.23
17:08:42 +0530 DIST: BAGALKOT.
2. KUMARI KAVITA D/O. HANMANTH DADDIMANI,
AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O SANAL, TQ: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
3. KUMAR CHETAN S/O. HANMANTH DADDIMANI,
AGE: 13 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O. H.NO.4, ASHRYA COLONY, RUKAMINI NAGAR,
BELAGAVI.
(SINCE APPELLANTS NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3831
MFA No. 101528 of 2014
REPRESENTED BY THEIR MINOR GUARDIAN
NATURAL MOTHER I.E. APPELLANT NO.1)
4. SMT. NEELAWWA W/O. ANNAPPA DADDIMANI,
AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. SANAL, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
5. SRI. BHIMAPPA S/O. GANGAPPA HALINGALI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE OWNER
OF THE TRACTOR BEARING REG. NO.KA-29/T-3785
TRAILER NO. KA-29/T-4110, KA-28/T-4590
R/O. SANAL, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HARISH S.MAIGUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 AND R3 ARE MINORS REP. BY R1;
SRI. S.L. MATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R5;
R4 SERVED)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES
ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
31.01.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.646/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER MACT NO.6,
JAMKHANDI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 5,35,000/-
AT THE RATE OF INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.
THIS M.F.A., COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Though the matter is listed for admission, it is taken up
for final disposal.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3831
2. Heard Sri.M.Y.Katagi, learned counsel for the
appellant, Sri.Harish S. Maigur, for respondent No.1 and
Sri.S.L.Matti, learned counsel for respondent No.5.
3. Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company
challenging the validity of the judgment and award passed in
MVC No.646/2009 dated 31.01.2014 on the file of Additional
Senior Civil Judge and MACT No.IV, Jamkhandi.
4. Briefs facts of the case are as under:
A claim petition came to be filed under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act contending that on 06.11.2008 at about
6.30 p.m., when the deceased Hanamanth Daddimani was
proceeding from Jamkhandi to Sanal on his motorcycle bearing
No.KA-48/4782, when he was about to reach Jamkhandi on
Jamkhandi - Bijapur road, four kilometers away from
Jamkhandi, he dashed against a parked tractor and trailer units
bearing No.KA-48/H-4778, KA-28/T-3785, KA-29/T-4110 and
KA-28/4590 without sufficient indication and because of the
impact of the accident, Hanamanth Daddimani died.
5. Dependants of Hanamanth Daddimani, filed a
claim petition as referred to supra and said claim petition, on
contest, came to be allowed, in a sum of Rs.10,70,000/-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3831
attributing 50% contributory negligence to the rider of the
motorcycle and awarded a sum of Rs.5,35,000/- as the
compensation payable by the Insurance Company of the tractor
and trailer units.
6. Being aggrieved by the same, Insurance Company
is in appeal.
7. Sri.M.Y.Katagi, learned counsel for the appellant,
reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum
vehemently contended that attribution of 50% of contributory
negligence to the driver of tractor and trailer units is incorrect
and sought for allowing the appeal. He also contended that
future income is not properly assessed by the Tribunal and it
should have been 40% and not 50% following the principles of
law enunciated in the case of National Insurance Company
Limited vs. Pranaya Sethi and others reported in 2017 ACJ
2700 and sought for allowing the appeal.
8. Per contra Sri.Harish S. Maigur, learned counsel,
learned counsel and Sri.S.L.Matti, learned counsel, supported
the impugned judgment.
9. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, this
Court perused the material on record, meticulously.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3831
10. On such perusal of the material on record, since the
tractor and trailer unit were parked without sufficient
indication, Hanamanth Daddimani could not locate the tractor
and trailer units, which were parked on the road and dashed
against it, while riding the motorcycle and incident has occurred
at about 06.30 p.m. in the month of November.
11. It is common sense that in the month of November,
sun sets early and without there being any indication, if a
person is moving on a motorcycle, he may not be immediately
able to locate the parked vehicle and therefore, attributing 50%
of contributory negligence to the rider of the motorcycle,
tractor and trailer units is just and proper.
12. Insofar as compensation is concerned, even if it is
reassessed, taking into consideration of 40% as the future
income, the amount of compensation is reducible, is only to the
extent of Rs.23,000/-.
13. Taking note of the fact that as on the date of
passing the award, the principles of law enunciated in the case
of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranaya Sethi
and others reported in 2017 ACJ 2700 as referred to supra,
was not available for the Tribunal to assess the future income,
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3831
reducing future income from 50% to 40% in the facts and
circumstance of the case, is not permissible.
14. Accordingly, no grounds are made out for allowing
the appeal. Hence, following:
ORDER
i. Appeal is meritless and hereby dismissed.
ii. Amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to
the Tribunal for disbursement in accordance with
law.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KAV
