Karnataka High Court
Mahadevi W/O Karabasayya Kautalmath vs Basappa S/O Basalingayya Mudennavar on 10 January, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:599
MFA No. 24879 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 24878 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.24879 OF 2012 (MV)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.24878 OF 2012
IN M. F. A. NO.24879 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. BASAWWA W/O. BASAPPA AKKI
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S
1(a) CHANNAPPA S/O. BASAPPA AKKI,
AGE ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC: NIL.
NO. 27, SAGAR COLONY, KUSUGAL ROAD,
HUBLI.
1(b) IRAVVA W/O. SHIVAPA CHADARANGI,
AGE ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: KUDALAKATTI, TQ AND DIST: DHARWAD.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. NAVEEN CHATRAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BASAPPA S/O. BASALINGAYYA MUDENNAVAR
SAROJA AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
HANGARAKI R/O: SANGEDEVARKOPPA, TQ: KALAGHATAGI,
Digitally signed by DIST: DHARWAD.
SAROJA
HANGARAKI
Date: 2024.01.25
11:46:59 +0530 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BRANCH DHARWAD. BY ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
JOSHI BUILDING, LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBLI.
(POL.240701/31/09/00010789 VALID UP TO 14-12-2010)
3. NAGAPPA S/O. SANGAPPA MUDENNAVAR
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: RIDER OF MOTOR CYCLE
R/O: SANGEDEVARKOPPA, TQ: KALAGHATAGI,
DIST: DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N.R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 AND R3 SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:599
MFA No. 24879 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 24878 of 2012
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 11-11-2011 PASSED IN MVC.NO.220/2011 (OLD
NO.479/2010) ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, HUBLI, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED
UNDER SECTION 163-A OF MV ACT.
IN M. F. A. NO.24878 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
SMT. MAHADEVI W/O. KARABASAYYA KAUTALMATH
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: MANTUR, TQ: HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NAVEEN CHATRAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BASAPPA S/O. BASALINGAYYA MUDENNAVAR
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: SANGEDEVARKOPPA, TQ: KALAGHATAGI,
DIST: DHARWAD.
2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BRANCH DHARWAD. BY ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
JOSHI BUILDING, LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBLI.
(POL.240701/31/09/00010789 VALID UP TO 14-12-2010)
3. NAGAPPA S/O. SANGAPPA MUDENNAVAR
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: RIDER OF MOTOR CYCLE
R/O: SANGEDEVARKOPPA, TQ: KALAGHATAGI,
DIST: DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N.R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. S.R. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R3 SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 11-11-2011 PASSED IN MVC.NO.221/2011 (OLD
NO.481/2010) ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
ADDL. MACT, HUBLI, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER
SECTION 163-A OF MV ACT.
THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS, COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:599
MFA No. 24879 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 24878 of 2012
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.Naveen Chatrad, learned counsel for the
appellants - claimants and Sri.N.R.Kuppelur, learned
counsel for the respondent - Insurance Company.
2. Though these appeals are listed for admission,
with the consent of both the parties, they are taken up for
final disposal.
3. These two appeals are filed by the claimants
challenging dismissal of the claim petitions on the ground
that the registered RC owner is not made as a party to the
claim petitions though quantum of compensation is
assessed by the Tribunal.
4. MVC No.220/2011 and MVC No.221/2011 were
filed by Smt.Basawwa and Smt.Mahadevi respectively.
Basawwa claimed amount of compensation under Section
163-A of Motor Vehicles Act in respect of death of
Sri.Ningappa involving motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-
31/L-9435 and another motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:599
25/R-7411, whereas Mahadevi is the injured in the very
same accident.
5. Both the claim petitions were contested by filing
necessary written statements by the Insurance Company.
Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary
evidence placed on record, assessed compensation in a
sum of Rs.3,83,324/- in respect of claim in MVC
No.220/2011 and sum of Rs.27,000/- in respect of claim in
MVC No.221/2011.
6. The ground on which the claim petitions came
to be rejected was that the claimants have failed to
implead the registered owner of the offending vehicle as
party to the claim petition.
7. Sri.Naveen Chatrad, learned counsel for the
claimants contended that the RC owner who was the
subsequent transferee of the vehicle has been made as a
party and not the previous owner and the same has not
NC: 2024:KHC-D:599
been appreciated by the Tribunal in a proper perspective
and sought for allowing appeals.
8. He also contended that in respect of the very
same accident, another Tribunal has allowed the claim
petition of claimant in respect of death of family member
and the Insurance Company has satisfied the award
passed in MVC No.1051/2010 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Dharwad. As such, Insurance
Company ought to have fairly accepted the claim in MVC
No.220/2011 and MVC No.221/2011 on the file of Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Hubballi.
9. Per contra, Sri.N.R.Kuppelur, learned counsel
representing the Insurance Company while admitting
satisfaction of award in MVC No.1051/2010 on the file of
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dharwad, contended that
in respect of the claim in MVC No.221/2011, the same is
not only dismissed on the ground of non-impleading the
earlier RC owner of the vehicle, but also on the ground
NC: 2024:KHC-D:599
that the police records and the claim petition averments
do not tally each other.
10. He also contended that in the absence of
arraigning the earlier RC owner of the vehicle as party-
respondent to the proceedings, the claim petitions were
not maintainable as the principal liability is on the RC
owner of the offending vehicle and the same has been
rightly appreciated by the Tribunal and sought for
dismissal of the appeals.
11. In view of the rival contentions of the parties,
this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
12. On such perusal of the material on record,
admittedly, the claimants have impleaded the transferee
owner as party respondent in the cases. However, the
insurance policy did not get transferred on to the
transferee RC owner but it stood in the name of the
original owner.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:599
13. It is now settled principles of law that even in
the absence of transfer of insurance policy in the name of
the transferee RC owner, still, the Insurance Company is
liable to pay the compensation as the liability that has
been insured is in respect of the vehicle and not in respect
of the RC owner. Therefore, dismissal of the claim
petitions by the Tribunal even after assessing the quantum
of compensation is incorrect and therefore, a case is made
out for interference by this Court.
14. Insofar as contention of the Insurance Company
in respect of claim in MVC No.221/2011 that the claim
petition averments and the police records do not tally
cannot also be countenanced in law inasmuch as claimant
is an injured in the very same accident. Therefore, the
claim petitions need to be allowed.
15. In view of the foregoing discussion, following
order is passed:
NC: 2024:KHC-D:599
ORDER
(i) Appeals are allowed.
(ii) Impugned judgment and award passed in MVC
No.220/2011 and MVC No.221/2011 on the file of
Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Hubballi dated
11.11.2011 are set aside.
(iii) The claim petitions are allowed. The claimant in
MVC No.220/2011 is entitled to compensation in a
sum of Rs.3,83,324/- and claimant in MVC
No.221/2011 is entitled to Rs.27,000/- as is
adjudged by the Tribunal.
(iv) The compensation amount in both the cases shall
carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the
date of petition till realisation.
(v) Insurance Company is granted six weeks time to
pay/deposit the adjudged compensation.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SH
