Karnataka High Court
The Manager vs Smt. Neelamma And Ors on 29 July, 2024
Author: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5440
MFA No. 202133 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. 202133 OF 2017 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER
ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
THROUGH ITS MANAGER,
DB PLAZA 3RD FLOOR, 47TH WHITE ROAD, CHENNAI,
NOW REPRESENTED BY
ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INS CO. LTD,
SUBRAMANYAM BUILDING 2ND FLOOR, NO.1,
CLUB HOUSE ROAD, ANNA SALAI,
CHENNAI-600002
THROUGH ITS MANAGER LEGAL
/AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.
Digitally signed
...APPELLANT
by RENUKA (BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AND:
KARNATAKA
1. SMT. NEELAMMA W/O HANUMANT
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. EACHNAL VILLAGE, TQ. LINGASUGUR,
DIST. RAICHAUR, NOW RESIDING AT
NIJALINGAPPA COLONY, RAICHUR-584101.
2. GADDEMMA D/O HANUMANTHA
AGE:19 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. EACHNAL VILLAGE, TQ. LINGASUGUR,
DIST. RAICHAUR, NOW RESIDING AT
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5440
MFA No. 202133 of 2017
NIJALINGAPPA COLONY,
RAICHUR-584101.
3. SRI DEVARAJ @ RAJAPPA
S/O HANUMANTHA
AGE:14 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
R/O. EACHNAL VILLAGE, TQ. LINGASUGUR,
DIST. RAICHAUR, NOW RESIDING AT
NIJALINGAPPA COLONY, RAICHUR-584101.
4. LAXMI D/O HANUMANTHA
AGE: 03 YEARS OCC: NIL,
RESPONDENTS 3 & 4 ARE MINORS
REPRESENTED NO.1 MOTHER,
R/O. PLOT NO.24 VEERGOAT DEVADURGA,
TQ: DEVADURGA, DIST: RAICHAUR,
NOW RESIDING AT NIJALINGAPPA COLONY,
RAICHUR-584101.
5. ISHAKASAB S/O KHASIMSAN NAWALI
MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O. YARGUNTA VILLAGE
TQ: LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR-584101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY V/O DATED 31.10.2023 NOTICE TO R5 IS HELD
SUFFICIENT; R1 AND R2 ARE SERVED; R3 AND R4 ARE
MINORS REPTD BY R1)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO
CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 18TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017 PASSED BY MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT RAICHUR IN MVC
NO.339/2016 AND TO MODIFY THE COMPENSATION AWARDED
AND TO PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT
DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CASE, INCLUDING THE COSTS. AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5440
MFA No. 202133 of 2017
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)
1. The appeal is by the Insurance Company challenging
the compensation of Rs.11,70,000/- awarded for the death
of one Hanumanth.
2. It was the case of the claimants that Hanumanth was
working as a cleaner in the Tata Ace vehicle bearing
registration No.KA-36/A-5546, which suffered an accident
in which he suffered serious injuries and succumbed to the
same.
3. It is howefver the case of the Insurance Company
that Hanumanth was one among the six unauthorized
passengers and since the liability of the unauthorized
passengers was not covered under the policy, they would
not be liable.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5440
4. The wife of the claimant during the course of her
cross-examination categorically stated that her husband
was working as a cleaner in the vehicle and that the owner
of the vehicle was a resident at Yargunta and she did not
know his name but was aware that he was a Muslim. She
also stated that her husband was working under him for
about a year prior to his death.
5. She also denied the suggestion that her husband was
not working as a cleaner and she also denied the
allegations that there were 8 to 10 passengers in the
vehicle at the time of accident. It is therefore clear that
the wife of deceased asserted that the deceased was a
cleaner of the Tata Ace vehicle.
6. The Insurance Company apart from placing reliance
on the complaint on the basis of which a FIR was
registered and on the statement in the charge sheet,
seeks to contend that the deceased was traveling as
unauthorized traveler in the Tata Ace vehicle. Admittedly,
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5440
the complainant Smt.Neelamma who lodged the complaint
was not examined. Therefore, there is no evidence to
accept that Hanumanth was a passenger. The reliance
placed on the charge sheet can also be of no consequence
since it is settled law that the statements made in the
charge sheet are not conclusive pieces of evidence. An
assertion in the charge sheet would nevertheless have to
be proved by examining the person who gave the
statement and subjecting him to cross-examination. The
Insurance Company by merely placing reliance on the
complaint and the charge sheet cannot contend that it is
proved that the deceased was an unauthorized passenger.
7. Having regard to the fact that the Tata Ace vehicle
had a carrying capacity of 1+1 and having regard to the
assertion of the claimants that the deceased was working
as a cleaner, which was not disproved, in my view, the
tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that
Hanumanth was a cleaner and the liability of the Insurance
Company would stand attracted.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5440
8. Consequently, I find no reasons to entertain the
appeal and the appeal is therefore dismissed.
Sd/-
(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)
JUDGE
MSR
