Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Smt. Shalini W/O Prakash @ Maruti Patil on 16 January, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:1059
MFA No. 24642 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.24642 OF 2012 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MARUTI GALLI,
BELAGAVI, REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS
REGIONAL OFFICE, ARIHANT COMPLEX,
2ND FLOOR, KUSUGAL ROAD, HUBLI,
REP. BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. N.R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. SHALINI W/O. PRAKASH @ MARUTI PATIL
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
2. SRI. MOHANGOUDA S/O. RAMANAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 87 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
3. SMT. LAXMIBAI W/O. MOHANGOUDA PATIL
Digitally signed
by SAMREEN AGE: 77 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
SAMREEN AYUB
DESHNUR
AYUB Date: 4. KUMARI. LATA D/O. PRAKSH @ MARUTI PATIL
DESHNUR 2024.01.29
15:28:57 AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
+0530
5. KUMARI. SUJATA D/O. PRAKASH @ MARUTI PATIL
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
6. KUMARI. SAVITA D/O. PRAKASH @ MARUTI PATIL
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
7. KUMARI. DEEPA D/O. PRAKASH @ MARUTI PATIL
AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
ALL ARE R/O. MAVINAHONDA VILLAGE,
TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:1059
MFA No. 24642 of 2012
8. SRI. MAHADEV S CHANDAKI
(OWNER OF THE MOTORCYCLE NO. CND-8175)
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S.
8(a) SMT. BHARATI W/O. MAHADEV CHANDAKI,
AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. DONWAD, TQ. CHIKKODI,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
8(b) RAKESH S/O. MAHADEV CHANDAKI,
AGE. 26 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE JOB,
R/O. DONWAD, TQ. CHIKKODI,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
8(c) NINGAPPA S/O. MAHADEV CHANDAKI
AGE. 25 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE JOB,
R/O. DONWAD, TQ. CHIKKODI,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
8(d) SMT. GOURAVVA D/O. MAHADEV CHANDAKI,
AGE. 22 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. DONWAD, TQ. CHIKKODI,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(R1, R4, R5, R6 R8 (A) TO R8 (D) ARE SERVED;
R1, R4, R5 AND R6 ARE LR'S OF R2, R3, R7)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DTD: 31-03-2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.307/1994 ON THE FILE OF
THE MEMBER, MACT AND DISTRICT JUDGE, PRESIDING OFFICER,
FAST TRACK COURT, CHIKKODI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF
RS.2,57,320/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 9%P.A., FROM THE
DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR
ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:1059
MFA No. 24642 of 2012
JUDGMENT
Heard Shri. N. R. Kuppelur, learned counsel for the
appellant-Insurance Company. None present for respondents.
2. Present appeal is filed challenging the validity of the
judgment and award passed in MVC No.307/1994 dated
31.03.2011 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and
District Judge, Fast Track Court, Chokkodi.
3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for
disposal of the present appeal are as under:
3.1. A claim petition came to be filed under Section 166
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 contending that in respect of
death of Prakash @ Maruti Patil, dependents have sought for
suitable compensation. The road traffic accident involved two
vehicles namely Suzuki motor cycle bearing registration
No.CND-8175 and Hero Honda motor cycle bearing registration
No.KA-23/E-6598.
4. The claim petition was resisted by the Insurance
Company by filing necessary written statement.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:1059
5. Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part by
granting compensation in a sum of Rs.2,57,320/- with interest
at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till its
realization recoverable from respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and
severally who are the owner and Insurance Company of motor
cycle bearing registration No.CND-8175.
6. Being aggrieved by the same, the Insurance
Company of motor cycle bearing registration No.CND-8175 has
preferred the present appeal.
7. Reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal
memorandum, Shri. N. R. Kuppelur, learned counsel for the
appellant-Insurance Company contended that as on the date of
accident, motor cycle bearing registration No.CND-8175 was
not covered by the insurance as the insurance policy has
expired long back and the insurance policy itself has not been
marked before the Trial Court. Therefore, fastening the liability
on the Insurance Company of the motor cycle bearing
registration No.CND-8175 is incorrect.
8. He has produced the certified copy of the policy on
behalf of the appellant before this Court along with memo.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:1059
9. He also submits that a review petition came to be
filed before the Trial Court seeking review of the order in view
of the policy being effective from 04.09.1993 to 03.09.1994
and accident has occurred on 03.09.1994. Said Review Petition
came to be rejected by the Trial Court.
10. Therefore, he sought for setting aside the liability
fastened on the Insurance Company.
11. Though respondents-claimants served with the
notice of the appeal, but they remained absent.
12. Since the original insurance policy was not
produced by the respondent No.2-appellant before the Trial
Court, need has arisen to consider the fact that the motor cycle
bearing registration No.CND-8175 was duly insured as on the
date of accident.
13. Therefore, the mater requires re-consideration at
the hands of the MACT by remitting the matter to the Trial
Court.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:1059
14. Hence, the following order is passed:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed.
(ii) Impugned judgment and award insofar
as liability on the Insurance Company is set aside.
(iii) The matter is remitted to the Trial Court
for fresh disposal in accordance with law insofar
as the liability on the Insurance
Company to pay the adjudged compensation.
(iv) It is made clear that this Court has not
expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of
the contentions raised on behalf of the Insurance
Company with regard to the validity or otherwise
of the insurance policy, photocopy of which is
produced before this Court.
(v) Further, this Court has also not
expressed any opinion on the quantum of
compensation.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:1059
(vi) Office is directed to return the Trial
Court records with copy of this order forthwith.
(vii) The amount in deposit shall be
refunded to the Insurance Company with a
condition that if the Insurance Company fails to
prove his case, shall be re-deposited before the
Trial Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMM
