Karnataka High Court
Shriram Central Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt. Mahadevi W/O Basavaraj Belli on 12 January, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:787
MFA No. 103222 of 2018
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.103222 OF 2018 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
SHRIRAM CENTRAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
# 302, S & S BUILDING, CORNER PLOT NO.48,
3RD FLOOR, OPPOSITE BORING AND LADY
CORZON HOSPITAL, SHIVAJI NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560001, NOW REPRESENTED
BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. MAHADEVI W/O. BASAVARAJ BELLI
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O. HONNAKATTI VILLAGE,
TQ AND DIST BAGALKOT-587101.
2. SRI. BASAVARAJ S/O. BHIMANNA BELLI
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: MINOR COOLIE,
Digitally
R/O: HONNAKATTI VILLAGE,
signed by
SAMREEN
TQ AND DIST:BAGALKOT-587101.
SAMREEN AYUB
AYUB DESHNUR 3. SRI. SHANKAR S/O. DATTA RATHOD
DESHNUR Date:
2024.01.29 AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF THE LORRY
15:28:17
+0530 BEARING REGISTRATION NO.MH-06/K-5131,
R/O: HARMANI TANDA, KUPPA, TALUK:WADAWANI,
DIST:BEED (MS)-4331122.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PADMAJA TADAPATRI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R2;
R3 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.05.2018 PASSED IN MVC
NO.193/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.III, BAGALKOT, AWARDING COMPENSATION
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:787
MFA No. 103222 of 2018
OF Rs.5,60,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL ITS REALISATION.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR
ORDERS , THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Shri. S. K. Kayakamath, learned counsel for the
appellant-Insurance Company and Smt. Padmaja Tadapatri
representing Shri. K.L. Patil, learned counsel for respondent
Nos.1 and 2.
2. The Insurance Company is in appeal challenging the
validity of judgment and award passed in MVC No.193/2013
dated 23.05.2018 on the file of MACT No.III, Bagalkot.
3. The claimants who are the parents of the deceased
filed the claim petition in respect of death of their minor child
namely Devaraj Belli in a road traffic accident occurred on
09.02.2013 involving a lorry bearing registration No.MH-06/K-
5131.
4. The claim petition was resisted by the Insurance
Company by filing detail written statement.
5. The Tribunal after considering both oral and
documentary evidence on record, allowed the claim petition in
part and granted a sum of Rs.5,60,000/- with interest at the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:787
rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its
realization and fastened the liability on the Insurance Company.
6. Being aggrieved by the same, the Insurance
Company is in appeal.
7. Shri. S. K. Kayakamath, learned counsel for the
appellant-Insurance Company contended that the lorry did not
have a valid permit inasmuch as the permit that was obtained
by the owner of the lorry was only to ply the lorry in the State
of Maharashtra and the incident has occurred in Karnataka
State and hence, there is a violation of the permit conditions
and sought for allowing the appeal.
8. Per contra, Smt. Padmaja Tadapatri representing
Shri. K.L. Patil, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2
contended that in such an event, the Insurance Company made
liable to pay the compensation at the first instance and entitle
to recover the same from the owner of the lorry.
9. Having heard the parties, this Court perused the
material on record meticulously.
10. In the case on hand, accidental death of minor by
name Devaraj Belli in a road traffic accident on 09.02.2013
involving the lorry bearing registration No.MH-06/K-5131 has
NC: 2024:KHC-D:787
been established and the Trial Court taking note of the
principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court has
granted a sum of Rs.5,60,000/- as compensation, on the
ground of towards loss of dependency a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-,
Rs.50,000/- towards loss of love and affection and a sum of
Rs.10,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral
expenses. Therefore, quantum of compensation is just and
proper.
11. The next question is whether the Insurance
Company would be made liable to pay the adjudged
compensation.
12. Shri. S.K. Kayakamath, learned counsel for he
appellant contended that the lorry did not have valid permit to
ply the same in the State of Karnataka and the owner of the
lorry remained exparte before the Trial Court.
13. Taking note of the fact that there is no proper
permit to ply the lorry in the State of Karnataka, the quantum
of compensation adjudged by the Tribunal needs to be paid by
the Insurance Company at the first instance to the claimants
and then Insurance Company is entitled to recover the same in
the very same proceedings from the owner of the lorry.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:787
14. With above modification, appeal needs to be
allowed.
15. Accordingly, the following order is passed:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) While maintaining the quantum of
compensation, the Insurance Company-appellant is
directed to pay the compensation at the first
instance and entitled to recover the same from the
owner of the lorry in very same proceedings.
(iii) Amount in deposit is ordered to be
transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement in
accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMM
