Karnataka High Court
The Branch Manager The United India ... vs Savitri W/O Hanamant Kakhandaki And Ors on 22 October, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7777
MFA No. 200321 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200321 OF 2023 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER,
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
S. S. FRONT ROAD, VIJAYAPURA,
NOW AT MAHANT SQUARE, FIRST FLOOR,
ATAL BIHARI VAJPAYEE ROAD,
NEAR INDI BUS STOP,
VIJAYAPURA-586101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI J. AUGUSTIN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by RENUKA 1. SAVITRI W/O HANAMANT KAKHANDAKI,
Location: HIGH AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
COURT OF R/O GACHINKATTI COLONY,
KARNATAKA VIJAYAPURA-586103.
2. SWAPNA D/O HANAMANT KAKHANDAKI,
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O GACHINKATTI COLONY,
VIJAYAPURA-586103.
3. KAVERI D/O HANAMANT KAKHANDAKI
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O GACHINKATTI COLONY,
VIJAYAPURA-586103.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7777
MFA No. 200321 of 2023
4. BHIMANAGOUDA SHANTAPPA JAMBAGI,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O MINAJAGI, TQ. MUDDEBIHAL,
DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586214
(OWNER OF LORRY BEARING NO.KA-23/8898)
...RESPONDENTS
(R1 TO R4 ARE SERVED).
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO,
A) CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN MVC NO.103/2020 BY THE IV
ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT XV AT VIJAYAPURA. B)
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.09.2022
PASSED IN MVC NO.103/2020 BY THE IV ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT - XV, VIJAYAPURA EXONERATING
THE APPELLANT OF THE ENTIRE LIABILITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
The captioned appeal is filed by the insurance
company challenging the finding relating to negligence,
wherein the Tribunal having determined the compensation,
has proceeded to record finding that deceased contributed
negligence to the extent of 25%, while the driver of the
offending truck who had parked the truck at the middle of
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7777
the road has contributed to an extent of 75%. This finding
is under challenge.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/insurance company. The respondents/claimants
though served with notice, have not chosen to contest the
appeal.
3. A claim petition was filed for having lost one
Hanamant Kakhandaki, who suffered multiple injuries in a
road traffic accident dated 05.08.2018. The said accident
occurred at about 08:00 p.m. in the night. The claimants
who are the legal heirs of Hanamant Kakhandaki claimed
compensation of Rs.23,30,000/-.
4. The claimants contended that while deceased
was proceeding on a motorbike on 05.08.2018, the driver
of the offending vehicle owned by first respondent had
illegally parked the lorry at the middle of the road which
led to accident and hence claimed compensation.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7777
5. The claimants and second respondent/insurance
company led oral and documentary evidence.
6. The Tribunal, having taken cognizance of the
police records, more particularly, the sketch furnished
along with the charge-sheet, noticed that the driver of the
offending lorry had virtually parked the vehicle on the
middle of the road without taking any precautions. It is in
this background, the Tribunal was of the view that though
the deceased was also negligent, the Tribunal proceeded
to hold that the driver of the offending lorry was more
negligent and therefore the negligence was fixed at 75%
on the driver of the offending lorry, while 25% was fixed
on the deceased while riding a bike on the ill-fated day.
7. On meticulous examination of the records, this
Court is of the view that the finding recorded on
negligence is based on the evidence led in by the
claimants.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7777
8. Though a feeble attempt is also made
questioning the quantum, this Court on meticulous
examination of records, is of the view that the Tribunal
has rightly assessed the notional income of the deceased
and the compensation determined under the head of loss
of dependency is in accordance with law. However, under
the conventional heads, the compensation determined by
the Tribunal is marginally on the lower side. As there is no
cross-appeal by the claimants and the fact that they have
not chosen to contest this appeal, no indulgence is
warranted at the hands of this Court insofar as the
quantum is concerned. The Appeal is devoid of merits.
Accordingly stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
RSP
CT-SW
