Karnataka High Court
The Oriental Insurance vs Erappa And Anr on 29 July, 2024
Author: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5435
MFA No. 201557 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201557 OF 2017 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGIONAL MANAGER,
SNEHLATHA COMPLEX,
GREEN LANDS ROAD, BEGUMPET,
HYDERBAD,
NOW THROUGH THE
SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
1ST FLOOR, N.G. COMPLEX,
OPP: MINI VIDHAN SOUDHA,
KALABURAGI-585102.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
AND:
by RENUKA
Location: HIGH 1. ERAPPA S/O HANMANTH SORALE,
COURT OF AGED: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
KARNATAKA
R/O. VILLAGE MUSTAPUR,
TQ. AURAD-B, DIST. BIDAR-585326.
2. M/S JEMINI CARRIER
OWNER OF TANKER BEARING NO. GJ-06/Z-483,
R/O. VUDU SHOPPING CENTRE, CHHANI,
DISTRICT BARODA (VADODARA)
GUJARATH-391510.
...RESPONDENTS
(ABATED-V/O DATED 04.04.2024 APPEAL AGAINST R1 STANDS
DISMISSED; NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5435
MFA No. 201557 of 2017
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO
CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED-16.01.2016 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MACT, BIDAR IN MVC
NO.380/2012 BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AS PRAYED.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)
This appeal is by the Insurance Company challenging
the award passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Bidar (for short, the Tribunal) by which a sum of
`7,29,728/- was awarded for the death of daughter of the
first respondent.
2. It is the principal contention of the Insurance
Company that the husband of the deceased Badigeri
Ramesh had filed a claim petition in respect of the very
same accident before the MACT at Sangareddy in MVOP
No.414/2011 and the said Tribunal was also pleased to
award compensation of `6,00,000/- along with interest at
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5435
the rate of 8% per annum, which has in fact been
satisfied.
3. It is the case of the Insurance Company that
compensation in respect of the death of the husband of
the deceased was the subject matter of a claim
proceedings before the MACT at Sangareddy, the father of
the deceased could not have filed one more claim before
the MACT, Bidar. He submits that the filing of claim
petition before MACT at Sangareddy by the husband of the
deceased was totally suppressed and the Tribunal on the
basis that no other claim had been made has passed the
impugned award granting a sum of `7,28,728/-. It is
therefore contended that in respect of the one death in
one accident, two awards have been passed and this
would be untenable.
4. Notice to this appeal was ordered and it
appears that an endorsement was received that the first
respond was dead. Consequently, an order was passed
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5435
that the appeal stands abated, since steps were not taken
within time.
5. Learned counsel for the Insurer submits that
the Insurance Company was unable to take steps since
they were unable to trace the legal heirs of the deceased
first respondent. He submits that since the claim in respect
of the very same accident has been subject matter of
another claim proceedings and an award has also been
passed and also been satisfied, no useful purpose will be
served to bring the legal heirs of deceased first respondent
on record.
6. He submits that, if the deceased had other legal
heirs other than the first respondent, it would be open for
them to seek for apportionment of their share by initiating
a separate proceedings against the husband of the
deceased.
7. In my view, this submission deserves
acceptance. If in a motor vehicle accident for the death of
a victim, the claim petition filed by the husband and an
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5435
award is passed and this is also been satisfied by the
Insurance Company, obliviously the other legal heirs could
not have maintained a separate and a parallel claim.
8. It is no doubt true that the Insurance Company
ought to have brought this fact to the notice of the
Tribunal, but obviously due to the bureaucratic procedure
that Insurance Company follows, this has not been done.
However, before this Court the award passed by the MACT
at Sangareddy has been produced and on perusal of the
same, it is clear that the award in respect of the very
same accident. The voucher is also produced to indicate
that amount awarded has been satisfied.
9. In this view of the matter, the impugned award
cannot be sustained and same is accordingly set-aside. It
is however made clear that if there are other legal heirs of
the deceased who are entitled to make a claim, they would
be entitled to proceed against Badigeri Ramesh, the
husband of the deceased, who has secured the award and
seek for their share by making necessary application either
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5435
before the very same Tribunal or by initiating other
proceedings.
The appeal is accordingly allowed.
The impugned judgment and award dated
16.01.2016 passed by the Principal District and Sessions
Judge and MACT, Bidar in M.V.C.No.380/2012 is set-aside.
Sd/-
(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)
JUDGE
SN
CT: VD
