Karnataka High Court
Smt.Najma Begum And Ors vs Sharanbasappa And Ors on 3 January, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:108
MFA No. 202468 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 201772 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 202468 OF 2017 (MV-D)
C/W
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201772 OF 2017(MV-D)
IN MFA NO.202468/2017:
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. NAJMA BEGUM W/O LATE ESALAM BAVGI,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD.
2. SAYED BILAL S/O LATE ESALAM BAVGI
AGE: 10 YEARS,
3. MAHEBOOBSAB S/O GUDUSAB BAVGI
AGE: 58 YEARS OCC: NIL, APPELLANT NO.2 IS
MINOR U/G OF THE APPELLANT NO.1 ALL ARE R/O
Digitally signed VILLAGE KURIKOTA TQ & DIST: KALABURAGI NOW
by
KHAJAAMEEN R/AT VILLAGE MADBOOL TQ & DIST: KALABURAGI
L MALAGHAN
Location: High ...APPELLANTS
Court of
Karnataka (BY SRI SANJEEV PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHARANBASAPPA S/O NAGENDRAPPA PATIL,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: NOT KNOWN,
R/O. H.NO.4-654, MAKTAMPUR,
KALABURAGI-585102.
2. VENKATESH S/O ADAVIRAM DESAI
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: NOT KNOWN
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:108
MFA No. 202468 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 201772 of 2017
R/O. H.NO.601/32/A, M.B. NAGAR,
KALABURAGI-585104.
3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
N.G. COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR,
OPP. MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA,
KALABURAGI-585102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SANJAY M. JOSHI ADV. FOR R3;
R1 AND R2 ARE SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT,
PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED-
28.07.2017, PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT
AT CHITTAPUR, IN FILE BEARING M.V.C.NO.1047/2015 BY
ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN MFA NO.201772/2017:
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
N.G. COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR,
OPP. MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA,
KALABURAGI-585102.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SANJAY M. JOSHI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. NAJMA BEGUM W/O LATE ESALAM BAVGI,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD.
2. SAYED BILAL S/O LATE ESALAM BAVGI
AGE: 10 YEARS, MINOR, UNDER GUARDIAN OF
RESPONDENT NO.1 SMT. NAJMA BEGUM.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:108
MFA No. 202468 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 201772 of 2017
3. MAHEBOOBSAB S/O GUDUSAB BAVGI
AGE: 58 YEARS OCC: NIL,
(ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE KURIKOTE,
TQ. & DIST: KALABURAGI,
NOW R/AT VILLAGE MADBOOL,
TQ. CHITTAPUR, DIST: KALABURAGI-585101.
4. SHARANBASAPPA S/O NAGENDRAPPA PATIL,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: NOT KNOWN,
R/O. H.NO.4-654, MAKTAMPUR, KALABURAGI,
TQ. AND DIST: KALABURAGI-585101.
5. VENKATESH S/O ADAVIRAM DESAI
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: NOT KNOWN,
R/O. H.NO.601/32/A, M.B. NAGAR, KALABURAGI,
TQ. AND DIST: KALABURAGI-585101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SANJEEV PATIL, ADV. FOR R1 (R2 IS MINOR U/G
OF R1) R4 AND R5 ARE SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT,
PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS OF IN
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED-28.07.2017, OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT AT CHITTAPUR,
M.V.C.NO.1047/2015, IN SO FAR AS THE LIABILITY OF
RS.5,30,000/- WITH INTEREST OF 6% AND SET ASIDE THE
SAID JUDGMENT AND AWARD, IN SO FAR AS THE LIABILITY IS
SADDLED UPON THE APPELLANT INSURANCE COMPANY.
THESE APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:108
MFA No. 202468 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 201772 of 2017
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the judgment and award passed in MVC
No.1047/2015, dated 28.07.2015, by the Senior Civil
Judge And MACT, Chittapur, both the insurance company
as well as the claimant are before this Court. Insurance
Company's appeal is numbered as MFA No.201772/2017
and claimants' appeal is numbered as MFA
No.202468/2017.
2. The claim petition is filed under Section-163-A
of the MV Act claiming compensation of an amount of
Rs.20,00,000/- with interest at 18% per annum. It is the
case of the claimant that on 10.10.2008 while the
deceased was returning to his village after completing his
JCB Operator work , on the way at about 4.00 a.m., when
the deceased was near village Aurad-B on Gulbarga-
Humnabad State Highway, the said motorcycle dashed
against the roadside stone and thereby the deceased fell
down on the ground and sustained grievous head injuries
NC: 2024:KHC-K:108
and on other vital parts of his body and succumbed to the
injuries on the spot. According to the claimants the
deceased was hale and healthy and was earning an
amount of Rs.40,000/- per month. The court below has
held that the petition is filed under Section - 163A of MV
Act and the negligence need not be proved and granted
compensation of an amount of Rs.5,30,000/-. The
claimants are before this Court seeking enhancement of
the compensation and the insurance company is before
this court questioning the liability.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance
company submits that even if the application is filed under
Section -163A of MV Act, if the deceased himself is a tort-
feaser, the Legal representatives cannot file an application
under Section-163A of MV Act. He has relied on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Ramkhiladi And Another V. United India Assurance
NC: 2024:KHC-K:108
Company And Another1. He submits that under Section-
163A of MV the claimant need not prove the negligence of
the driver of the opposite vehicle. But he is a tort-feaser
he is not entitled to claim compensation. He further
submits that the court below without appreciating all these
aspects and the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court had
granted the compensation.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants
submits that this claim petition is filed under Section-163A
of MV act and the claimants need not prove the negligence
and the court below had rightly granted the compensation.
It is submitted that the compensation that was awarded
by the court below is a reasonable compensation and does
not call for any interference.
5. Having heard the learned counsel on either
side, perused the entire material on record. In this case,
(2020) 2 SCC 550
NC: 2024:KHC-K:108
the court below had granted compensation holding that
under Section-163A of MV Act, negligence need not be
proved. Under Section-163A of MV Act, negligence of the
opposite vehicle need not be proved but if the deceased
himself is a tort-feaser even under Section-163-A also the
claimants are not entitled for compensation. The Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Ramkhiladi referred to supra
has dealt with a similar issue and has held that a tort-
feaser cannot maintain a claim petition under Section-163-
A of MV Act, However as there was a Personal Accident
Coverage in the said case had granted compensation
under the personal accident coverage. In this case also as
per the policy an amount of Rs.50/- is paid towards the
personal accident coverage, hence, the claimants are
entitled for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards personal
accident coverage.
6. Accordingly, Insurance Company's appeal in
MFA No.201772/2017 is partly allowed directing the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:108
insurance company to pay the personal accident coverage
amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and claimants' appeal in MFA
No.202468/2017 is Dismissed.
i) The insurance company shall deposit the
amount within a period of eight weeks from the
date of receipt of copy of the judgment. On
such deposit, the claimants are entitled to
withdraw the entire amount without furnishing
any security.
ii) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court
Records to the Tribunal, along with certified
copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith
without any delay.
iii) The amount in deposit shall be transferred to
the Tribunal forthwith.
iv) No costs.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:108
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
Sd/-
Judge
JJ
