Karnataka High Court
The Authorized Signaroty Shriram ... vs Shahidabanu W/O Abdulsattar ... on 3 January, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:96
MFA No. 102595 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102595 OF 2014 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
THE AUTHORIZED SIGNAROTY,
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
E-8, EPIP RIICO, SITAPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN STATE,
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
LEGAL CELL E-8, EPIP, RIICO, INDUSTRIAL AREA,
SITAPURA, JAIPUR-302022, RAJASTHAN STATE.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. SHAHIDABANU
W/O. ABDULSATTAR KALESABANAVAR,
Digitally
signed by AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
BHARATHI
BHARATHI H M R/O: HALESHIDENUR, TQ: BYADGI,
HM Date:
2024.01.11 DIST: HAVERI.
11:39:36
+0530
2. MUJAMIL
S/O. ABDULSATTAR KALESAVANAVAR,
AGE: 9 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
3. MUBARAK
S/O. ABDULSATTAR KALESAVANAVAR,
AGE: 8 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
4. THASMIYABANU
D/O ABDULSATTAR KALESAVANAVAR,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:96
MFA No. 102595 of 2014
AGE: 5 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
(SINCE THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 TO 4
ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR
N/G MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1.)
5. MAHAJANABI MOULALISAB KALESABANAVAR,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
6. MOULALISAB
S/O GOUSUSAB KALESAVANAVAR,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
ALL ARE APPELLANTS
R/O. HALISHIDENUR, TQ: BYDAGI,
DIST. HAVERI.
7. SAMIVULLA S/O. NAJEERSAB MULLA,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF THE VEHICLE REGN.
NO.KA-27/A-1431,
R/O: HALESHIDENUR, TQ: BYADGI,
DIST: HAVERI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NAGARAJ APPANAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. LAXMAN T. MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R5 AND R6;
R2 TO R4 ARE MINORS REP. BY R1;
R7 SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, AGAINST JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 02.07.2014, PASSED IN MVC.NO.504/2012 ON THE FILE OF
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND IT COURT AND AMACT, BYADGI,
AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.11,12,750/- WITH THE
INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION
TILL THE DATE OF REALISATION.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:96
MFA No. 102595 of 2014
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri. S K. Kayakamath, learned counsel for the
appellant and Sri. Nagaraj Appanavar representing Sri.
Laxman T. Mantagani, learned counsel for the
respondents.
2) The present appeal is directed against the
veracity of the judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal in MVC No.504/2012, dated 02.07.2014, insofar
as fastening the liability on the appellant/Insurance
Company.
3) Reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal
memorandum, learned counsel Sri. S K. Kayakamath,
contended that the deceased is admittedly gratuitous
passenger and therefore the Insurance Company cannot
be held liable for the payment of compensation and the
remedy for the claimant is only to proceed against the
owner of the vehicle and to that extent sought for allowing
the appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:96
4) However, Sri. Nagaraj Appanavar, learned
counsel representing the claimant, contended that the
deceased is a cleaner in the lorry and therefore he cannot
be considered as a gratuitous passenger. As such, the
impugned judgment and award is perfectly valid and
sought for dismissal of the appeal.
5) This Court in light of the rival contentions,
perused the material available on record and the trial
Court records meticulously.
6) On such perusal, it is pertinent to note that no
required proof is placed on record by the claimant to
consider that the deceased was a cleaner of the lorry.
7) On the contrary material available on record
would go to show that number of persons were being
carried in the lorry for attending a wedding.
8) Insofar as the deceased is concerned no
evidence is placed on record by examining the owner of
the lorry or any other person who say that deceased was
working as a cleaner in the lorry.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:96
9) Under such circumstances, materials available
on record hardly sufficient to accept the contention urged
on behalf of the claimant that, the deceased was a cleaner
of the lorry and therefore he was covered by Insurance
policy.
10) No doubt owner of the offending lorry had valid
Insurance Policy as on the date of accident. But itself is
not sufficient to fasten the liability on the Insurance
Company to pay the compensation amount.
11) Under such circumstances, the judgment
passed by the Tribunal insofar as fastening the liability on
the Insurance Company needs interference.
12) Therefore, the appeal filed by the Insurance
Company needs to be allowed.
13) Accordingly, the following order is passed:
ORDER
a) Appeal is allowed.
b) Impugned Judgment and award insofar
as fastening the liability on the Insurance
NC: 2024:KHC-D:96
Company is hereby set aside. Rest of the
judgment and award stands unaltered.
c) Amount in deposit is ordered to be
returned to the Insurance Company.
d) Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PMP
