Karnataka High Court
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Dyamanna @ Dyamappa S/O Fakirappa ... on 12 January, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:816
MFA No. 24227 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.24227 OF 2013 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,
RAICHUR BY ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
KESHWAPUR, HUBLI,
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS DY. MANAGER,
REGIONAL OFFICE, HUBLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DYAMANNA @ DYAMAPPA
S/O. FAKIRAPPA GULANNAVAR
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS,
RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 4
Digitally signed
SAMREEN
by SAMREEN
AYUB 2. HANUMANTAPPA
DESHNUR
AYUB Date: S/O DYAMANNA @ DYAMAPPA GULANNAVAR
DESHNUR 2024.01.29
15:31:31
+0530
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
3. DEVAPPA DYAMANNA @ DYAMAPPA GULANNAVAR
AGE : 24 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
4. KUMARI RENAVVA
D/O DYAMANNA @ DYAMAPPA GULANNAVAR
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
ALL ARE RESIDENT OF UMACHAGI,
TAL. HUBLI.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:816
MFA No. 24227 of 2013
5. VEERANAGOUDA H.SINGANAHALLI
AGE : MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF
HITACHI NO.KA33/M0001,
R/O : POST GOGI, TAL. SHAHAPUR
DIST. GULBARGA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR M.HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2-R4;
R1 DECEASED, R2-R4 ARE LR'S OF R1;
SRI. G.N. BADIGER, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED: 06-06-2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.331/2011 ON THE
FILE OF III-ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT,
HUBLI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.4,98,000/- WITH
INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION
TILL ITS REALISATION.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.Rajashekhar S Arani, learned counsel for
the appellant - Insurance Company and
Sri.Chandrashekhar M Hosamani, learned counsel for the
respondents - claimants.
2. Sri.G.N.Badiger, learned counsel representing
respondent No.5 - owner absent.
3. Insurance Company is in appeal challenging the
validity of the judgment and award passed in MVC
NC: 2024:KHC-D:816
No.331/2011 dated 06.06.2013 on the file of the
Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hubballi.
4. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for
disposal of this appeal are as under:
4.1 A claim petition came to be filed under Section
166 of Motor Vehicles Act in respect of accidental death of
Gangavva that occurred on 12.02.2011 involving a Hitachi
crane bearing No.KA-33/M-0001.
4.2 The claim petition was resisted by filing
necessary written statement by the owner of Hitachi crane
and the Insurance Company.
4.3 The Tribunal after raising necessary issues,
recorded the evidence of one of the claimants as PW.1 and
placed reliance on the documents produced by the
claimants which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to
P.5 and Exs.R.1 and R.2 produced on behalf of
respondents and allowed the claim petition in part and
NC: 2024:KHC-D:816
awarded a sum of Rs.4,98,000/- and fastened liability on
owner and Insurance Company jointly and severally.
5. Being aggrieved by the same, Insurance
Company is in appeal.
6. Reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal
memorandum, Sri.Rajashekhar S Arani learned counsel for
the Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal has
wrongly appreciated the material evidence on record and
fastened liability on the Insurance Company and sought
for allowing the appeal.
7. Further, he pointed out that the driver of the
Hitachi crane did not possess special driving licence or an
endorsement to that effect in the licence held by him
which is issued to drive light motor vehicle and sought for
allowing the appeal.
8. Per contra, Sri.Chandrashekhar M Hosamani,
learned counsel for the claimants supported the impugned
judgment and award by placing reliance on the principles
NC: 2024:KHC-D:816
of law enunciated in Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental
Insurance Company Limited reported in AIR 2017 SC
3668.
9. In view of the rival contentions of the parties,
this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
10. On such perusal of the material on record, there
is no dispute that Gangavva lost her life in the accident
that occurred on 12.02.2011.
11. The Tribunal taking note of the relevant aspects
of the matter, allowed the claim petition in a sum of
Rs.4,98,000/-.
12. The principal ground on which the liability is
challenged by the Insurance Company is that the driver
did not possess proper driving licence.
13. Following the principles of law enunciated in
Mukund Dewangan and also taking note of the fact that
unladden weight of the vehicle in question is less than
7,500 kgs, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:816
Tribunal has rightly fastened liability on the owner of the
vehicle as well as Insurance Company jointly and
severally.
14. Accordingly, no case is made out to interfere
with the impugned judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal.
15. In view of the foregoing discussion, following
order is passed:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is meritless and is hereby dismissed.
(ii) No order as to costs.
(iii) Amount in deposit is ordered to be
transmitted to the concerned Tribunal
forthwith for disbursement.
Sd/-
JUDGE
