Karnataka High Court
United India Insurance Co.Ltd vs Kumar Sakled S/O Rabbani Bisti on 29 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4671
MFA No. 100038 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 100039 of 2014, MFA No.
100040 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100038 OF 2014 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100039 OF 2014
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100040 OF 2014
IN MFA NO.100038/2014
BETWEEN:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD,
SHIMOGGA, BY ITS DIVISIONAL
OFFICE, ENKAY COMPLEX,
KESHAWAPUR, HUBLI,
REPRESENTED THROUGH
ITS TP CLAIMS HUB,
NO.3, ENKAY COMPLEX,
KESHAWAPUR, HUBLI-580023.
ROHAN
HADIMANI
T ...APPELLANT
Digitally signed by
(BY SRI. SHASHANK HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
ROHAN HADIMANI T
Date: 2024.03.05
11:13:25 +0530
AND:
1. HAZARESAB S/O. BUDDESAB KOUTAL @ KOITAL,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC: CARPENTER,
R/O. MOULALI NAGAR, SHIGGAON,
NOW RESIDING AT KARADIKOPPA,
TQ: HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD.
2. MANJUNATH S/O. BASAVANNEPPA ANTARAVALLI
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF FOOD
CAR NO.KA-14/N-4608,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4671
MFA No. 100038 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 100039 of 2014, MFA No.
100040 of 2014
R/O.GURUKRIPA NILAYA,
IV CROSS, BASAVANAGUNDI,
SHIMOGGA, DIST: SHIMOGGA-577201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR M. HOSAMANI, ADV. FOR R1;
SRI. HAREESH S. NAYAK, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.173(1)
OF MOTOR VEHICLS ACT 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS CONNECTED WITH CASE MVC NO.215/2012 ON THE FILE
OF THE FIRST ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, HUBLI
EXAMINE THE SAME AND SET ASIDE THE AWARD DATED 31-07-2013
AS AGAINST THE APPELLANT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
IN MFA NO.100039/2014
BETWEEN:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD,
SHIMOGGA, BY ITS DIVISIONAL
OFFICE, ENKAY COMPLEX,
KESHAWAPUR, HUBLI
REPRESENTED THROUGH
ITS TP CLAIMS HUB,
ASSISTANT MANAGER,
NO.3, ENKAY COMPLEX,
KESHAWAPUR, HUBLI-580023.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHASHANK HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SMT. MANTAZ W/O. HAZARESAB KOUTAL @ KOITAL,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O. MOULALI NAGAR, SHIGGAON,
NOW RESIDING AT KARADIKOPPA,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4671
MFA No. 100038 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 100039 of 2014, MFA No.
100040 of 2014
TQ: HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD.
2. MANJUNATH S/O. BASAVANNEPPA ANTARAVALLI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF FOOD
CAR NO.KA-14/N-4608,
R/O.GURUKRIPA NILAYA,
IV CROSS, BASAVANAGUNDI,
SHIMOGGA, DIST: SHIMOGGA-577201.
RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR M. HOSAMANI, ADV. FOR R1;
SRI. HAREESHA S. NAYAK, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.173(1)
OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS CONNECTED WITH CASE MVC NO.216/2012 ON THE FILE
OF THE FIRST ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, HUBLI,
EXAMINE THE SAME AND SET ASIDE THE AWARD DATED 31-07-2013
AS AGAINST THE APPELLANT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
IN MFA NO.100040/2014
BETWEEN:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD,
SHIMOGGA, BY ITS DIVISIONAL
OFFICE, ENKAY COMPLEX,
KESHAWAPUR, HUBLI,
REPRESENTED THROUGH
ITS MANAGER, TP CLAIMS HUB,
NO.3, ENKAY COMPLEX,
KESHAWAPUR, HUBLI-580023.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHASHANK HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. KUMAR SAKLED S/O. RABBANI BISTI,
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4671
MFA No. 100038 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 100039 of 2014, MFA No.
100040 of 2014
AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT,
MINOR BY GUARDIAN NATURAL MOTHER,
SMT. RAMEEJA W/O. RABBANI BISTI,
AGE: 27 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. MOULALI NAGAR, SHIGGAON,
NOW RESIDING AT KASHIMSAB
FAKRUSAB DODDAMANI,
R/O. KARADIKOPPA, TQ: HUBLI,
DIST: DHARWAD.
2. MANJUNATH
S/O. BASAVANNEPPA ANTARAVALLI,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: OWNER OF FOOD
CAR NO.KA-14/N-4608,
R/O. GURUKRIPA NILAYA,
IV CROSS, BASAVANAGUNDI,
SHIMOGGA,
DIST: SHIMOGGA-577201
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR M. HOSAMANI, ADV. FOR R1:
SRI. HAREESH S. NAYAK, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.173(1)
OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS CONNECTED WITH CASE MVC NO.217/2012 ON THE FILE
OF THE FIRST ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, HUBLI,
EXAMINE THE SAME AND SET ASIDE THE AWARD DATED 31-07-2013
AS AGAINST THE APPELLANT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4671
MFA No. 100038 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 100039 of 2014, MFA No.
100040 of 2014
JUDGMENT
These appeals have been filed by the insurance company
challenging the common judgment and award dated
31.07.2013 in MVC Nos.215/2012, 216/2012 and 217/2012
passed by I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT,
Hubli, challenging the saddling of liability of 80% on the
Insurance company. The parties are referred to as per their
ranking before the Tribunal.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of these appeals are that
the claimant Hazaresab S/o Buddesab Koutal @ Koital who is a
rider of the motorcycle, Smt. Mantaz wife of the rider and Shri.
Kumar Sakled were proceeding on the motorcycle M-80 bearing
registration No.KA-27/J-2283 towards Pune-Bengaluru road.
The rider of the motorcycle was in moderate speed observing
the traffic rules on the correct side of the road. When the
motorcycle came from opposite to Bevinmarad Petrol Bunk on
Pune-Bengaluru road in Shiggaon, the Car bearing registration
No.KA-14/N-4608 driven by its driver in rash and negligent
manner came from Hubballi side towards Haveri and dashed to
the motorcycle. Due to the impact, the claimants fell down and
sustained injuries. It is averred that the injured were taken to
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4671
C/W MFA No. 100039 of 2014, MFA No.
100040 of 2014
KIMS hospital, Hubballi, where they have provided treatment
and two of the claimants also underwent surgery and they have
incurred huge medical expenses. It is further averred that due
to the accident, claimants suffered physical disability and
unable carryout their routine activities. Hence, filed the claim
petition seeking for compensation for the road accident.
3. The appellant/insurance company appeared before
the Tribunal and filed objections denying averments of the
claimants. It is averred that the rider of the motorcycle was
negligent in driving the motorcycle which has caused accident
in question. It is also averred that the claim of the injured are
on the higher side and they have denied their age, income,
avocation and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
4. The claimants in order to prove their claim
examined four witness as PW1 to PW4 and got marked 79
documents as Exs.P1 to P79. The respondent examined RW1
who was the driver and RW2 administrative officer of the
company. The Tribunal after considering the evidence available
on record has awarded total compensation of Rs.1,46,600/-
along with 6% interest in MVC No.215/2012, Rs.8,000/- along
with 6% interest in MVC No. 216/2012 and Rs.1,59,000/- along
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4671
C/W MFA No. 100039 of 2014, MFA No.
100040 of 2014
with interest at the rate of 6% in MVC No.217/2012. The
Tribunal held that rider of the motorcycle was also negligent
and contributed to the accidental question. The Tribunal further
held that the appellant/insurance company is liable to pay 80%
of the compensation awarded by holding that the rider of the
motorcycle has contributed to the accident at 20%. Being
aggrieved by the judgment and award of the Tribunal, the
insurance company has filed these appeals only to the extent of
saddling of liability at 80%.
5. Heard Shri. Shashank Hegde learned counsel
appearing for the appellant. Shri.Chandrashekar M Hosamani
learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and Shri
Hareesh S. Nayak learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No.2.
6. Shri. Shashank Hegde learned counsel appearing
for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has committed
grave error in coming to the conclusion that the driver of the
Car was negligent and he has contributed to the accident to the
extent of 80% and saddled the liability of 80% on the appellant
company. It is submitted that jurisdictional police after
completion of investigation have filed charge sheet against the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4671
C/W MFA No. 100039 of 2014, MFA No.
100040 of 2014
driver of the Car as well as rider of the motorcycle. When
things stood thus, the Tribunal ought to have held that the
rider of the motorcycle also has contributed to the accident to
the extent of 50%. Hence, he seeks to modify impugned
judgment and award to the extent of 50%. Hence, he seeks to
allow the appeal.
7. Per contra, Shri. Chandrashekar M. Hosamani
learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 supports the
impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits
that though the charge sheet is filed against the rider of the
motorcycle. However, taking note of the fact that the rider of
the motorcycle was joining National Highway by showing the
indicator and without seeing the same, the driver of the Car
came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the
motorcycle. He submits that the Tribunal on considering the
charge sheet material has recorded categorical finding that the
rider of the motorcycle was negligent to the extent of 20%.
Hence, 80% liability is saddled on the insurance company.
Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of memorandum of appeal, impugned judgment
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4671
C/W MFA No. 100039 of 2014, MFA No.
100040 of 2014
and Trial Court records. The point that arises for consideration
in these appeals is "whether the Tribunal has justified in
saddling 80% of liability on the appellant insurance company?"
9. The answer to the above point is in the 'affirmative'
for the following reason.
10. The parties to the proceeding does not dispute that
on 23.10.2011 at about 12.10 p.m., the road accident occurred
between M80 motorcycle ridden by the claimant in MVC
No.215/2012 and Car bearing registration No.KA-14/N-4608. It
is also not in dispute that the claimants due to the said accident
has suffered injuries and taken treatment. Considering the
evidence available on record, the Tribunal from paragraph 18 to
21 has recorded finding that the driver of the Car was negligent
to the extent of 80% and rider of the motorcycle was negligent
to the extent of 20%. This Court on reappreciation of the
evidence available on record is of the considered view that the
Tribunal is right in coming to the aforesaid conclusion. The
contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/insurance
company that the jurisdictional police have filed charge sheet
against the driver of the Car as well as rider of the motorcycle
is true. However, taking note of the charge sheet papers, it is
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4671
C/W MFA No. 100039 of 2014, MFA No.
100040 of 2014
evident that when the rider of the motorcycle was entering the
Highway the Car came in high speed and dashed to the
motorcycle. The driver of the Car ought to have taken certain
precautions to reduce the speed when the road is about to join
to the Highway. The evidence of RW1 driver of the Car clearly
indicates that he has admitted the guilt and paid fine for the
offences. Taking note of these facts Tribunal has rightly come
to the conclusion that the driver of the Car was negligent to the
extent of 80% and the rider of the motorcycle to the extent of
20%. This Court does not find any error in the finding recorded
by the Tribunal to come to a different conclusion and alter the
liability. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court does not
find any merit in these appeals. Accordingly, the same are
dismissed. Registry is directed to transmit the deposit amount
to the Tribunal immediately along with the records.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RKM
