Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt.Basavarajeshwari W/O. Late ... vs Dastagiri S/O Boabayya Karatagi on 19 September, 2022

Author: S G Pandit

Bench: S G Pandit

                             -1-




                                     MFA No. 100806 of 2021


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                     DHARWAD BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                         PRESENT

            THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S G PANDIT
                            AND
       THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE


MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100806 OF 2021 (MV-D)


BETWEEN:

1.   SMT.BASAVARAJESHWARI W/O. LATE MOUNESH
     AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
     R/O. 10TH WARD, NEAR KARIYAPPA TATANA MATHA,
     J.P.NAGAR, KARATAGI, TQ.GANGAVATHI,
     DIST. KOPPAL-583229

2.   LAKSHMI D/O. LATE MOUNESH
     AGE. 15 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
     SINCE THE APPELLANT NO.2 IS MINOR
     UNDER THE GUARDIANSHIP OF HER
     NATURAL MOTHER I.E. APPELLANT NO.1

     R/O. 10TH WARD, NEAR KARIYAPPA TATANA MATHA,
     J.P.NAGAR, KARATAGI, TQ.GANGAVATHI,
     DIST. KOPPAL-583229
                                               ...APPELLANTS.

(BY SHRI A.M.MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE.)


AND:

1.   DASTAGIRI S/O BOABAYYA KARATAGI
     AGE. 32 YEARS,
     OCC. DRIVER OF OFFENDING LORRY,
     R/O. SIDDARADDEPALLE, TQ. PRODDATUR,
     DIST. KADAPA, (ANDHRA PRADESH) 516172
                              -2-




                                        MFA No. 100806 of 2021


2.   MURALI MOHAN REDDY VENDELA
     S/O. V.MUNI SHEKAR REDDY
     AGE. 44 YEARS,
     OCC. OWNER OF OFFENDING LORRY,
     R/O. DOOR NO.26/840-5
     NETAJINAGAR LAYOUT, PRODDATUR,
     DIST. KADAP (ANDHRA PRADESH)-516360

3.   THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
     THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
     DIVISIONAL OFFICE, YELAMANCHALI COMPLEX,
     STATION ROAD, HOSAPETE, DIST: BALLARI.

4.   HULIGEMMA W/O. LATE MOUNESH ANGADI
     AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
     R/O. GUNDA VILLAGE, TQ. SINDHANUR,
     DIST. RAICHUR-584132
                                                   ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI RAVINDRAR. MANE, ADVOCATE, FOR R.3;
R.1, R.2 AND R.4 - NOTICE SERVED.)


      THIS   MISCELLANEOUS   FIRST   APPEAL   IS    FILED   UNDER
SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.08.2019, PASSED IN
MVC NO.465/2015, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MACT, GANGAVATHI, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FILED
UNDER SECTION 166 OF M.V.ACT., ETC.,.

      THIS   APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS             DAY,
SHRI ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE, J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING.


                        JUDGMENT

The claim petition in MVC No.465/2015, on the file of Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Gangavathi, is dismissed in terms of impugned judgment and award dated 2.8.2019. -3- MFA No. 100806 of 2021 The petition is filed by the two petitioners. Petitioner No.1 claims to be the 2nd wife of late Mounesh Hanumantha Angadi, who died in a motor vehicle accident. Petitioner No.2 is claimed to be the adopted daughter of claimant No.1 and respondent No.4 is said to be the 1st wife of late Mounesh Hanumantha Angadi.

2. The tribunal has dismissed the petition on the premise that the 2nd wife is not entitled to claim compensation under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant would place reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Lalita vs. M.R.Sunilkumar and Ors., reported in 2015(1) KCCR 353. This Court in the said judgment has held that even the 2nd wife is entitled to claim compensation provided she was living with the deceased husband and she was dependent on the deceased husband. This judgment is not brought to the notice of the tribunal when the case was decided.

-4-

MFA No. 100806 of 2021

4. Learned counsel for the respondent insurer Shri Ravindra R. Mane, in his fairness would also submit that the 2nd wife is entitled to claim compensation provided that she was dependent on the person who died in the motor vehicle accident.

5. It is also brought to the notice of this Court during the course of hearing that two children from the 1st wife are not made parties to the proceedings. It is submitted that an application will be filed to implead children from the 1st wife.

6. Under these circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the impugned judgment and award and remit the matter back to the tribunal to consider the matter afresh in accordance with the observations made in this case and also in accordance with principle laid down in the case of Lalita vs. M.R.Sunilkumar referred supra.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant would also submit that he would file necessary application to implead -5- MFA No. 100806 of 2021 the children from the 1st wife in the petition before the tribunal. If application is filed before the tribunal to implead the children from the 1st wife, the tribunal shall issue notice to the children from the 1st wife and after hearing the parties, the tribunal shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

8. Accordingly the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 2.8.2019, passed in MVC No.465/2015, on the file of Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Gangavathi, are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the tribunal, for fresh consideration keeping in mind the observation made in this order.

Sd/-

JUDGE Sd/-

JUDGE MRK