Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Gangabai And Ors on 8 January, 2024
Author: B.M.Shyam Prasad
Bench: B.M.Shyam Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:265-DB
MFA No. 201949 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201949 OF 2023 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO.10-2-7 P.B.NO.12 II FLOOR,
S.B.TEMPLE ROAD,
SANGAMESHWAR NAGAR,
KALABURAGI-585103.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. GANGABAI
by RAMESH
MATHAPATI W/O KALLAPPA TURAI,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AGE: 42 YEARS,
KARNATAKA
OCC:HOUSEHOLD
2. MAHESH
S/O KALLAPPA TURAI,
AGE: 19 YEARS,
MINOR, STUDENT,
3. SHEKHAR
S/O KALLAPPA TURAI,
AGE: 17 YEARS,
MINOR, STUDENT,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:265-DB
MFA No. 201949 of 2023
4. BASAVARAJ
S/O KALLAPPA TURAI,
AGE: 15 YEARS,
MINOR ,STUDENT,
5. KALLAPPA
S/O BHIMARAYA TURAI,
AGE: 57 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
ALL ARE R/O KUTNOOR VILLAGE,
TQ: JEWARGI,
DIST: KALABURAGI-585105.
6. NAGENDRAPPA
S/O BEERANNA,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O H.NO.92, KUSNOOR,
GHANTI LAYOUT,
KALABURAGI-585105.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ANAND V TURE, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2, R5 & R6 ARE SERVED
R3 & R4 ARE MINORS)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT,
PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.09.2022 PASSED BY THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT JEWARGI IN MVC NO. 74/2021 BY
ALLOWING THE APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
Dr.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:265-DB
MFA No. 201949 of 2023
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the order passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jewargi, (hereinafter
referred to as 'the tribunal' for brevity) in MVC NO.74/2021
dated 19.09.2022.
2. The appellant is the Insurance Company, the
respondent Nos.1 to 5 being the claimants and respondent
No.6 being the insured.
3. Heard Sri.Manvendra Reddy, learned counsel for
the appellant as well as Sri.Anand V.Ture, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.1. Despite service of notice
upon the respondent Nos.2 to 6 none appeared.
4. The manner of happening of accident as could be
seen from the material available on record is that the
deceased Lakkappa (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased' for
brevity) along with one Siddappa and Shankar was
proceeding on a motorcycle towards Kalaburagi University
from Jewargi on 08.07.2019. When the motorcycle reached
near Nadi-Sinnur village one Fortuner vehicle came from
NC: 2024:KHC-K:265-DB
backside and hit the motorcycle, due to which the deceased
fell down. When the deceased and his friends were about to
get up, one Tipper vehicle bearing registration No.KA-32/D-
3559 came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed
in a zig-zag way and ran over the deceased, due to which he
sustained injuries and succumbed to those injuries.
5. The tribunal fastening the liability on part of the
appellant herein who is the insurer and respondent No.6
who is the insured of the tipper which is involved in the
accident, ordered them to pay compensation of
Rs.15,92,000/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the present
appeal is preferred.
6. The appellant-Insurance Company is disputing
its liability with a contention that the driver of the Fortuner
vehicle is equally responsible for the accident to occur and
therefore contributory negligence ought to have been
attributed on the part of the said Fortuner vehicle also.
7. In the light of the stand taken, the point that
emerges for consideration;
NC: 2024:KHC-K:265-DB
Whether the respondent Nos.1 to 5 have
established that the accident solely occurred
due to the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the tipper bearing registration No.KA-
32/D-3559?
8. The manner of happening of accident is not in
dispute. Equally, the involvement of the tipper bearing
registration No.KA-32/D-3559 is also not in dispute. The
only submission made by the learned counsel for the
appellant is that due to the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the Fortuner vehicle, the deceased and others who
were proceeding on a motorcycle fell down and therefore the
tribunal ought to have attributed contributory negligence on
part of the driver of the said vehicle. The submission made
by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1,
on the other hand is that entire police records including
Ex.P2-FIR and Ex.P7 charge sheet reveals that the driver of
NC: 2024:KHC-K:265-DB
the tipper was at fault and only to escape liability, the
present appeal is preferred.
9. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 also stated
that the apart from deceased Lakkappa, one Siddappa who
was present along with the deceased Lakkappa also fell
down from the motorcycle and the Tipper ran over the said
Siddappa also and he succumbed to the injuries. Learned
counsel stated that the dependants of Siddappa also moved
an application claiming compensation in MVC No.541/2021
which stood pending on the file of the MACT-Kalaburagi.
Learned counsel contends that the MACT-Kalaburagi found
fault with the driver of the Tipper and ordered that the
appellant herein and the insurer of the Tipper to pay
compensation. Learned counsel submits that the said order
of the tribunal was challenged before this Court vide MFA
No.201785/2023 and this Court on hearing both sides
dismissed the appeal on merits. A copy of the order of this
Court in MFA No.201785/2023 dated 01.06.2023 is placed
on record. With an observation that the opinion expressed
NC: 2024:KHC-K:265-DB
by the tribunal needs no interference, the said appeal stood
dismissed.
10. When two different tribunals have taken a
consistent view with regard to the fastening of liability and
when the stand taken by one of the tribunals is confirmed
by this Court on merits and when no additional material is
brought on record to take a different view, this Court is of
the opinion that such different view cannot be taken. Basing
on the relevant and admissible evidence, the tribunal has
taken a right view that the death of the deceased occurred
due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tipper.
Neither the observations made nor the conclusions arrived
at requires any interference. The claimants have established
not only the manner of happening of accident but also that
the death of deceased is due to rash and negligent driving of
the driver of the tipper. Therefore, this Court is of the view
that the impugned award needs no interference.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:265-DB
11. Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed without
costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
MSR
CT: CS
