Loading...
Responsive image

Savakka D/O Gaddigouda … vs Sri Basavanagouda on 13 January, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Savakka D/O Gaddigouda … vs Sri Basavanagouda on 13 January, 2010
Author: V.Jagannathan
MFA No.4376 of 2008
C/W MFA NO.711 of 2008

:2:

2. The New India Assurance Co Ltd,
Rep. By its Branch Manager,
Unit No.1, Srinath Complex,
New Cotton, Market: I-Iubli, 
Dharwad District. ...RESPONDENTS

(By Sri. K.L.Patil, Advocate for R1
Sri. G.N.Raichur, Advocate for R2)

This ‘ miscellaneous first ga’pp–eal is _,.filed under,
Section 173(1) of the Motor Ve_hic1_-es§Act’ the
judgment and award dated 26.102007 passed in
No.1435/1995 on the filextoi”-..__the l3’rincipa1i”C§iVi1_ Judge
(Sr.Dn.} and CJM 85 MACT’,w_}3harwad.,’paijtly; allowing A
the claim petition for corripen-sation «-and E seeking
enhancement of comp’e~nsatio’n.’

In MFA NO.71 1f’2V’0O8.”VV’ T ;-A

BETWEEI’-J-:ii,i.p: it

The New India.Ass’t1rance_”Co., Ltd,
Branch Unity No’;’-1,”‘Srinath’ Complex,
New Cotton-.1\/I’arl<et,t-Pflutili,
Represented by__Regional Office:

' _ No-.27 /_B, Unity Buildiing Annexe,

. Mission Road, Bangalore–560027.

___ By its Vd«:1_ly 'constituted Attorney. . . APPELLANT

(By_Bri., Baichur, Advocate}

A Savakka, since dead by L.R.,

Sri. Basavaraj, S / o Dyavappa Araganji,
Age: 47 years, Occ: Agriculture,

c/w'li51éA' iébiiil 5% E655
: 3 :

R/0 Ugalwal, Taluk: Badarni,
District: Bagalkot.

2. Sri Basavanagouda;

S / o Rarnanagouda Karebasavanagoudar,
Age: Major, Occ: Owner of Tractor,
R/0 Radder Naganur,
Taluk: Naragunda. …REsRQrm’£2NTsn

(By Sri. P.K.SanningammanaVar, AdVocate__fo:t:R;lj_).’e.

This miscellaneous first appeal filed mder~»
Section 173(1) of the Motor”-V..VehicleswAct ‘against the’
judgment and award dated “.25.i1O.2O0″.7. passed in MVC
No.1435/1995 on the file of _thei”-~P_rinciipa1.,. Civil Judge
(Sr.Dn.) and CJM Ml.’-\CT, -«Dharwad, awarding a
compensation of Rs.l,53;4OQf»–;2ith_*in’terest @ 6% p.a.
from the date of Vpetition_till_p’ay1ne”n~t.

‘fheseiini’i_Vs.cellar1eo’o_s first appeals coming on for
admission .this. the {C-.,OL1rt delivered the following:

QUDGMENT

learned counsel for the parties finally in

appeals preferred by the insurance

V pp cofiiopaxlyi duestioning the liability and also by the

V’ .,ciairnant seeking enhancement of compensation.

%

IVIFH EVU.’-L3/D U! LUUC3

C/W MFA NO.711 of 2008
: 5 :

also indicating that he was a major when the sister of
Kristavva died, the question of claimant depending upon
the deceased Kristavva does not arise. Referring___to the
policy in question, even before the Tribunal
made is that no premium was collected to
of a coolie in respect of
insurance company could not
regards the quantum is
that even assurningvfort argu’m.eritxg’~c.Sakelithat”Vl3asavaraj

was to some extent depeiidantlllin that he claims
to be «thee the deceased Kristavva, the only
amount’ it that ii been awarded will be

Rs.5(),O0{ll)fel in Apex Court’s decision reported

ACJ Alll22′}”9′”in the case of Manjuri Bera Vs.

Co. Ltd. And another.

other hand, Shri. P.K.Sanningam:manavar,

learnedcounsel for the claimant in the other appeal i.e.,

No.4376/2008, argued that Basavaraj stepped

/Eff

MFA No.4-375 of 2008
C/W MFA i\EO.711of2008

into the shoes of Savakka who died during the pendency
of the claim petition and Basavaraj is none the
son of the second wife of Dyavappa
Dyavappa Araganji married
following the consent given
consent letter–Ex.P.5.

husband of Kristavva.died:ep.riior_ Kris’ta:\.zyavi§and even
mother of Basavaraj tlfierrefore, Basavaraj
was As far as the
liability is submitted that the
insurarioe award in other cases
that ioutl accident and, therefore, it is

not open t11eVVi-nsurarice company to escape from the

‘ll”v,lia’bliity…A 2 eeeee

V : ‘ed counsel Shri K.L.Patil, for the owner of

theéllltravctoiilflargued that the liability is on the insurance

compaiiy as the policy is not in dispute and in other

_cases, the insurance company has satisfied the award.

2»:

MFA No.4376 of 2008
C/W MFA No.711 of 2.008
2 7 :

5. In the light of the aforesaid submission made and
the decision referred To, the 1st point for consideration is
whether Basavaraj can be said to be
deceased Kristavva. The claim petition was
by one Savakka claiming to be theHsister:–,of
at that point of time Basavaraj’..yV-as
picture. Secondly, at the of
seeking to amend was aged
35 years and, therefore,V:’asio_n the accident,
which was Basavaraj had
he was 23 years of age. No

evidence pla1ced”b;e’fore the Tribune] to show that

BaV_s’aVaraj was””e.rLtirrely dependent upon the deceased

‘.K,ri’sta\’rva.:f£\fot«hing is placed on record to show that

Sa,sairarajifii_\red with Kristavva and not with his parents

i2__viz., Sharada and Dyavappa Araganji. Though certain

§_’tj.o:cium€nts were produced by the claimant’s counsel viz.,

K hirth certificate and school records to show that father of

Ew

. r

MFA ¥\Eo.4376 of 2008
C/W MFA No.71: of 2008

been collected towards such persons. Learned counsel for
the insurance company also pointed out that unless
premium is paid no–~~liabi1ity will fall on the insurance
company under {MT 39. He also placed
Court’s decision in MFA No.8133/2004
disposed of on 03.11.2009. Haviegregare.g
and as there is no indication the policy 0
the coverage of the coolie inlithTe’tractoi<i_ vievirl
that no liability insurance
company. As 'far as; having

satisfied"'i'awards:?~:i'n "other casevs is concerned, I have

perused in those cases placed by the

learned co'unv_'sel_}Eor'=_th~el claimant in MVC Nos.1467 to

dislposedi of on 31.05.2006. The liability was

ev.in_j,surance company, but strangely, in the

entire judg-1'nent no whisper is there as regards the

ijeasoiie,' which led the Tribunal to put the liability on the

0 ~..in~s1.1rance company. No discussion is there as regards the

….policy conditions or applicability of IMT 39. Apart from

%

i"il"f'\|\lU."1'.J/U UI LUUO

C/W M?A NO.711 of 2008
I 10 1

this, merely because the insurance company has satisfied
awards in some cases that does not preclude the
insurance company from challenging the liability put on
it in other cases and, therefore, the argumeii'tl..:'_oiV"'the
learned counsel for the claimant that
company has satisfied the award »-in
therefore, it has to be held

does not impress me as carryiiigy no force it'; it

8. For the aforesaid Vrealsonls-;..pA appeal_fil.ed by the

insurance company allointerlzl put on it is set

aside.ll’The ..o’n’the owner of the tractor. As

far as the appeal claimant for enhancement of

p_ confpenisation is «concerned, in View of the decision of the

though there is no dependency factor

esta’blishedj_ the claimant, the maximum compensation

payable”;. virill be Rs_._50,000/– and, consequently, the

“:ii”_cor1;i}A7-ensation awarded by the Tribunal also gets reduced.

3?:

VII 1”’ |’i\Jo””f_)I\J U5 LUUIJ

C/W MFA NO.’/’11 of 2008
: 11 :

9. Both the appeals are disposed of in the above

terms.

Amount deposited by the insurance company be

refunded to it. ~ V ”

Ed]    J  

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information