Karnataka High Court
Ravi Pattar vs Smt. Neelaganga @ Neelamma And Ors on 5 September, 2024
Author: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6712
MFA No. 201702 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201702 OF 2019 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
RAVI PATTAR S/O SANGAPPA,
AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC: OWNER OF TRACTOR BEARING
REG.NO.KA-28/TC-3486 AND
TRAILOR BEARING REG.
NO.KA-28/T-7353 & 7354,
R/O MORATAGI, TQ:SINDAGI,
DIST: VIJAYAPURA-586101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. AMARESHWAR S.RAWOOR, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by SUMITRA AND:
SHERIGAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 1. SMT. NEELAGANGA @ NEELAMMA @
KARNATAKA NEELGANGAMMA W/O LATE MAREPPA
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOSUEHOLD WORK,
2. SUNIL S/O LATE MAREPPA,
AGE: 22 YRS OCC: STUDENT,
3. ANIL S/O LATE MAREPPA,
AGE: 19 YEARS OCC: STUDENT,
ALL ARE R/O. GHATTARGA,
TQ. AFZALPUR,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6712
MFA No. 201702 of 2019
DIST. KALABURAGI-585301.
4. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
MUMBAI THROUGH ITS OFFICE AT
# 301, 9TH MAIN ROAD,
3RD A CROSS, 1ST BLOCK,
HRBR LAYOUT, BANASWADI,
BANGALORE-560043.
5. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
SANGAM BUILDING, P.B.NO.60,
S.S.FRONT ROAD, BIJAPUR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANTOSH R.BELAMAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR FOR ADVOCATE R4,
SRI SHARANABASAPPA M.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING to
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE
COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AND MACT,
AFZALPUR IN MVC NO.815/2018 DATED 20.03.2019 BY
ALLOWING THE ABOVE APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
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)
The owner of the tractor to which two trailers were
attached and which was involved in the accident which
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6712
resulted in death of Mareppa (the husband of the first
claimant and the father of claimant Nos.2 and 3).
2. The Tribunal has exonerated the liability of the
Insurer on the ground that the insurance policy of the two
trailers had not been furnished and the permission to
attach two trailers to the tractor was also not furnished
and it has accordingly proceeded to determine a sum of
`12,27,000/- as compensation payable to the claimants
and has proceeded to fasten this liability on the owner of
the Tractor.
3. Along with this appeal, the owner has filed an
application seeking for production of additional documents
by which he seeks to produce the policy which had been
issued in respect of the tractor as well as the policy which
had been issued in respect of the two trailers. He has also
filed another application for production of additional
documents including an endorsement issued by the RTO in
which the RTO has stated that the two trailers bearing
Reg.KA-28/T-7353-54 had been permitted to be attached
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6712
to the Tractor bearing Reg.No.KA-28/TC-3486 and in the
year 2018, permission was granted for disconnection of
these two trailers. In the light of these documents, the
Insurer which had insured the trailers was ordered to be
impleaded.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurer of
the trailers contends that they have not been given an
opportunity to put-forth their case and hence the case
may be remitted to the Tribunal.
5. In my view, this submission cannot be accepted
since the occurrence of the accident is not in dispute and
the Insurer does not dispute the fact that it has insured
the two trailers under the policy which is now produced. A
remand at this stage, in respect of an accident of the year
2016, would cause unnecessary and grave prejudice to the
claimants who have been litigating for the past several
years to secure their rightful compensation.
6. Since the documents that are now produced are
adequate to adjudicate upon the issues involved in the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6712
appeal, it is appropriate that the entire issue should be
adjudicated in this appeal.
7. As already observed above, the insurance policy
which is now produced indicates that the two trailers which
had been attached to the tractor were in fact insured with
United India Insurance Company. It is also not in dispute
that the tractor as such was insured with Tata AIG
Insurance Company Limited. In this view of the matter,
the liability of the Insurers of the tractor and trailers to
pay the compensation cannot be in dispute.
8. Learned counsel appearing for United India
Insurance Company Limited however submits that interest
of justice would be served, if both the Insurance
companies are fastened with the liability in equal
proportions. He places reliance on the judgment rendered
by this court in MFA No.10788/2011 (MV) between the
Legal Manager, IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Bengaluru vs. Saraswathi and others disposed of on
24.03.2023.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6712
9. In my view, in the facts and circumstances of
this case, this submission deserves to be accepted and is
accordingly accepted.
10. Consequently, it is held that the Insurer of the
tractor i.e., Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited,
which has been arrayed as respondent No.4 in this appeal
and United India Insurance Company which has been
implemented as the respondent No.5 shall both be liable
to pay compensation in equal proportions.
11. Both of them are directed to deposit their
respective shares within a period of eight weeks.
12. Consequently, the appeal is allowed.
13. The amount, if any deposit by the owner of the
tractor, i.e., the appellant herein shall be refunded.
Sd/-
(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)
JUDGE
