Karnataka High Court
Mr.Laximan S/O Shanker Chougule vs Lalita And Ors on 7 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:53
MFA No. 200918 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200918 OF 2020 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
MR.LAXIMAN S/O SHANKER CHOUGULE,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS & OWNER
OF TRAILER NO.MH-23/C-6994,
R/O: ANDUR, TQ: TULJAPUR,
DIST. OSMANABAD, MAHARASHTRA-413501.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. BABU H. METAGUDDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. LALITA W/O LATE GURUNATH,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
Digitally signed
by SUMITRA
SHERIGAR 2. LOKESH S/O LATE GURUNATH,
Location: HIGH AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
3. JAGANNATH S/O LATE GURUNATH
AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
4. CHANDRAKALA W/O LATE KAMALAKAR,
AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD,
5. KAMALAKAR S/O LATE SHIVAMURTHI,
AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
ALL R/O: VILLAGE KURUBKHELGI,
TQ. BHALKI, DIST. BIDAR-584101.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:53
MFA No. 200918 of 2020
6. DEVKAR @ TANAJI S/O LATE MUKIND DEVKAR,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O ANDUR (DESHMUKH VASTI)
TQ. TULJAPUR,
DIST. OSMANABAD, MAHARASHTRA-413603.
...RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO R1 TO R4 AND R6 - SERVED, BUT UN-
REPRESENTED
V/O DTD. 29.08.2023, NOTICE TO R5 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLE ACT, PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN
MVC.NO.522/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND ADDITIONAL MACT AT BHALKI, B) ALLOW THIS APPEAL
AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
18.01.2020 PASSED IN MVC.NO.522/2016 BY THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT AT - BHLAKI AND
DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.6 VEHICLE PRUCHAGER TO PAY
THE COMPENSATION TO THE CLAIMANT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:53
MFA No. 200918 of 2020
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant. None appears for the respondents.
02. The appellant is the sole respondent before the
Tribunal in MVC.No.522/2016, which came to be disposed
of by judgment dated 18.01.2020 fastening the entire
liability of the compensation to the tune of Rs.10,01,500/-
upon the respondent therein.
03. The fact that there was a accident involving the
Trailer wherein the husband of claimant No.1 and the
father of claimants No.2 and 3 succumbed to the injuries,
is not in dispute.
04. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
would submit that though he had sold the offending
vehicle to RW.2 Bhutta @ Tanaji, (but his name in this
NC: 2025:KHC-K:53
appeal shown as Devkar @ Tanaji) the Tribunal has
fastened the liability on the appellant. It is submitted that
the appellant due to ill advise, did not implead the
purchaser of the vehicle in the proceedings before the
Tribunal. Now, the purchaser having been impleaded in
the present appeal as respondent No.6, the liability has to
be fastened upon the respondent No.6, since he was the
owner as on the date of accident. It is submitted that the
Tribunal has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter.
05. A careful perusal of the records available would
show that the sole respondent before the Tribunal was
examined as RW.1 and in his testimony he categorically
stated that he had sold the Trailer to the respondent No.6
- Bhutta (Devkar) @ Tanaji on 04.08.2011. Admittedly,
the accident had happened on 07.09.2015. The testimony
of RW.2 i.e., Bhutta (Devkar) @ Tanaji shows that he had
purchased the vehicle involved in the accident on
23.08.2011 as per the agreement. It is pertinent note that
RW.1 and RW.2 admitted their interse transaction before
NC: 2025:KHC-K:53
the Tribunal, but RW.2 was not made as a party before the
Tribunal, for the best reasons known to the respondent.
The sole respondent despite taking up a defence did not
bother to implead the purchaser, but he was brought
before the Tribunal and was examined as RW.2. This
shows that the RW.1 and RW.2, somehow wanted to avoid
the payment of the compensation to the claimants which
otherwise they are legally entitled to.
06. Now in the present appeal, the said RW.2 has
been impleaded as respondent No.6. Despite service of
notice, the respondent No.6 has not appeared before this
Court. Therefore, it is evident that the involvement of the
appellant herein who is the sole respondent before the
Tribunal and the RW.2, who is the respondent No.6 herein
this appeal, have colluded together in order to avoid the
payment of the compensation to the claimants. Therefore,
when there is sufficient material available on record, as
recorded by the Tribunal that the appellant herein as well
as the respondent No.6 had appeared before it and
NC: 2025:KHC-K:53
adduced the evidence, such evidence cannot be over-
looked or discarded. In the consequence, it would be in
the interest justice and equity that the liability to pay the
compensation has to be fastened upon the appellant as
well as the respondent No.6 herein.
07. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, it
would be proper to order that the appellant as well as the
respondent No.6 are jointly and severally liable to pay the
compensation as determined by the Tribunal to the
claimants. Hence, the appeal is disposed of as per the
following;
ORDER
I. The appeal is allowed in part.
II. The appellant as well as the respondent No.6 herein
are jointly and severally liable to pay the
compensation as determined by the Tribunal, to the
tune of Rs.10,01,500/- along with the interest to the
claimants.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:53
III. It is also made clear that the appellant herein is at
liberty to recover the compensation paid to the
claimants from the respondent No.6 herein.
IV. The amount which is in deposit is ordered to be
transmitted to the Tribunal for payment of the same
to the claimants.
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
KJJ
CT: AK
