Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1305 (KAR)

Honnappa Gowdar v. T. Gopinaik

2019-06-17

K.SOMASHEKAR

body2019
JUDGMENT : K. SOMASHEKAR, J. 1. These appeals were preferred by the appellants against the judgment and award dated 14.12.2012 passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.126/2010, wherein the Tribunal awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.2,55,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. 2. Mfa No.1254/2013 is filed by the owner of the offending vehicle against the aforesaid judgment seeking intervention in the impugned judgment regarding fastening the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle. 3. Mfa No.1808/2013 is filed by the claimants being the legal representatives of the deceased and filed a memo for disposal of the appeal in terms of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan -vs- Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 2017 AIR(SC) 663 as the liability requires to be saddled on respondent No.1 said to be the Insurance company 4. The factual matrix of the appeals is as under: It is evident in the claim petition that on 21.07.2010 at about 4.45 p.m., the claimants daughter namely Tulasibai was attending nature call in front of their house on the left side of the road of Giriyapura Thanda, in the mean while, the first respondent being the driver of the offending TATA ID Goods vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-27/A-2258, was driven in rash and negligent manner with high speed and hit against Tulasibai, due to that she sustained grievous injuries all over her body and she lost her breath on the spot itself. Subsequently, deceased Tulasibai was shifted to Primary Health Centre, Telagi Village for conducting Post Mortem over the dead body. After completion of the post mortem examination over the dead body, it has been handed over to the legal representatives of the deceased for conducting crematoria ceremony. 5. The said Tulasibai is the only daughter of her parents and she had bright future. Due to her untimely death, entire family members are under depression. These are all the averments made in the claim petition seeking for compensation against the respondents. 6. On issuance of notice, respondents participated through out the proceedings and also filed objections denying the entire averments made in the claim petition. The same has been reflected in the statement of objections filed by second respondent, wherein first respondent has adopted the objections filed by the second respondent, hence, sought for dismissal of the claim petition made by the L.Rs. of the deceased. 6. The same has been reflected in the statement of objections filed by second respondent, wherein first respondent has adopted the objections filed by the second respondent, hence, sought for dismissal of the claim petition made by the L.Rs. of the deceased. 6. Based upon the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the issues and given findings on evidence of P.W.1. In order to substantiate their claim, petitioner no.1 was examined as PW.1 and documents as per Exs.P1 to P8 were got marked. Subsequent to their evidence, respondent No.3-Insurance Company has got examined 3 witnesses R.W.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.R1 to R3. The Tribunal after hearing learned counsel for the parties and on evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, passed the impugned judgment awarding compensation of Rs.2,55,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. 7. Sri Lokesh Malavalli, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/owner in MFA No.1254/2013 submitted that the appellant herein said to be the owner of the offending vehicle, the Tribunal has fastened the liability on the owner as well as Insurance company in terms of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan's case referred to supra, the liability should have been saddled on the Insurance company who being arraigned as respondent No.1. With urging these grounds, he is seeking intervention in the impugned judgment. 8. Sri V.B. Siddaramaiah, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants in MFA No.1808/2013 has taken me through the evidence of P.W.1 and so also documents Exs.P.W.1 to P.W.8 and submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has rendered judgment in Mukund Dewangan's case referred to supra. Whatever the contention taken by the learned counsel for respondents in these appeals does not help them in any interference of the impugned judgment rendered by the Tribunal that it requires to be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment. Wherein, this appeal is preferred by the claimants- petitioners being the L.Rs. of deceased Tulasibai, the Tribunal has considered the same and awarded compensation based on the evidence of P.W.1 but the liability saddled on the owner of the offending vehicle said to be the respondent No.3, the same is required to be saddled upon respondent No.1-insurance company regarding payment of the compensation to the parents of the deceased. of deceased Tulasibai, the Tribunal has considered the same and awarded compensation based on the evidence of P.W.1 but the liability saddled on the owner of the offending vehicle said to be the respondent No.3, the same is required to be saddled upon respondent No.1-insurance company regarding payment of the compensation to the parents of the deceased. On these grounds, learned counsel for the appellants prays for allowing the appeal. 9. Sri B.C. Seetharama Rao, the learned counsel for respondent No.1-Insurance company contends that Shivakumar is the driver of the offending TATA Goods vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-27/A- 2258 and that one Honnappa Gowdar said to be the owner of the said vehicle being maintained by him involved in the accident and also causing grievous injuries and death of Tulasibai. Though insurance company has issued the policy, the driver of the offending vehicle has violated the terms and conditions of the policy issued and considered as non transport vehicle (LMV) and the same has been driven by him causing grievous injuries and death of Tulasibai. 10. The Tribunal appreciated the evidence of P.W.1 and also the documents placed by him in order to establish his case against respondents for seeking suitable compensation. Therefore, these appeals does not call for any interference of the impugned judgment and award as the Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability on the owner of the said vehicle and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. Hence, prays for dismissal of the appeal. 11. Having recorded the strenuous contention taken by the learned counsel for the appellants and so also the arguments advanced by the learned counsel Sri B.C. Seetharama Rao for respondent No.1, it is relevant to state that whatever the issues framed has to be required and has adopted in Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court of India in Mukund Dewangan -vs- Oriental Insurance Company Limited,2017 AIR(SCC) 663 relating to Light Motor Vehicle consists and so far as Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act in detail. Therefore, there is no reliance in these appeals as sought for and it is only to see that the liability saddled on the owner of the offending vehicle is requires to be saddled on the insurance company-respondent No.1 in MFA No.1808/2013 wherein, the appeal preferred by the claimants being the parents of the deceased Tulasibai. Therefore, there is no reliance in these appeals as sought for and it is only to see that the liability saddled on the owner of the offending vehicle is requires to be saddled on the insurance company-respondent No.1 in MFA No.1808/2013 wherein, the appeal preferred by the claimants being the parents of the deceased Tulasibai. Therefore, it is said that there are substances in the contention made by the learned counsel for the appellants in these appeals for interference of the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal. Liability is saddled on respondent No.1- Insurance company in MFA No.1808/2013 and so also in MFA No.1254/2013 as respondent No.4. Therefore, the appeals are required to be allowed in part. 12. For the reasons and findings as stated above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeals preferred by the appellants respectively are hereby allowed. The liability saddled on the owner of offending vehicle shall be saddled on respondent No.1 said to be the Insurance company in MFA No.1808/2013 and also representing as respondent No.4 in MFA No.1254/2013. The respondent/insurance company respectively be directed to deposit entire award amount inclusive of accrued interest before the concerned MACT forthwith within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The amount in deposit, if any, in MFA No.1254/2013 before this court, shall be returned to the owner of the offending vehicle on proper identification. There shall be no order as to the costs. Office to draw the decree accordingly.