Karnataka High Court
Pattreppa Siddappa Sigihalli vs Irappa M Murari on 12 October, 2017
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L. Narayana Swamy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL Nos.22477/2013
c/w 22478/2013 (MV)
IN M.F.A.No.22477/2013
BETWEEN:
SHRI PATTREPPA SIDDAPPA SIGIHALLI,
AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. BOGUR, POST: MADANABHAVI,
TQ: DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.I.Y.PATIL, ADV.)
AND:
1. SHRI IRAPPA M MURARI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINEES & AGRICULTURE,
2. SHRI IRAPPA MADEVAPPA BETIGERI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: DRIVER,
BOTH ARE R/O.HOSATTI, POST:MADANABHAVI,
TQ:DHARWAD DIST: DHARWAD.
3. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER,
1003-E-8, RIICC INDUSTRIAL AREA SITAPURA,
JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.SHAILA BELLIKATTI, ADV. FOR R1,
SHRI NAGARAJ C.KOLLOORI, ADV. FOR R3,
2
R2 SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173 (1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED 05.09.2012, PASSED IN MVC
No.11/2010, ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST
TRACK COURT-III AT DHARWAD, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION & SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A.No.22478/2013
SHRI MADIVALAPPA S/O. APPANNA YEDUNAVAR,
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O.MUGALI, POST: MADANABHAVI,
TQ: DHARWAD,DIST: DHARWAD. ... APPELLANT
(BY SHRI I.Y.PATIL, ADV.)
AND
1. SHRI IRAPPA M MURARI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS & AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HOSATTI, POST:MADANABHAVI,
TQ:DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD.
2. SHRI IRAPPA MADEVAPPA BETIGERI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O.HOSATTI, POST:MADANABHAVI,
TQ:DHARWAD DIST: DHARWAD.
3. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER,
1003-E-8, RIICC INDUSTRIAL AREA SITAPURA,
JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN, INDIA. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.SHAILA BELLIKATTI, ADV. FOR R1,
SHRI NAGARAJ C.KOLLOORI, ADV. FOR R3,
R2 SD)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173 (1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED 05.09.2012, PASSED IN MVC
3
No.134/2010, ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST
TRACK COURT-III AT DHARWAD, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION & SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
These appeals are filed by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 05.09.2012 in M.V.C.Nos.11/2010 and 134/2010 passed by the Fast Track-III, Dharwad, on the ground that the liability to pay the compensation ought to have been fastened on the Insurance Company.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 09.10.2009 at about 8.30 a.m., when the appellants were going from Begur to Dharwad market along with the vegetables loaded in a tempo bearing registration No.KA-25/A 3587, the driver of the said tempo lost control over the vehicle and hit the road divider and fell down due to which the appellants/claimants sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, they were shifted to KIMS 4 Hospital, Hubli, where they took treatment. They spent more than Rs.50,000/- towards hospital and medical bills etc., For the said road accident, a case had been registered in Cr.No.195/2009 on 09.10.2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC. The crime had been registered at the instance of the claimants who made a complaint to the police for having suffered motor vehicle accident injuries. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the driver of the vehicle. Subsequently, they filed a claim petition seeking compensation before the Tribunal. On the evaluation of the material available on record, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,05,500/- (in M.V.C.No.11/2010) and Rs.49,500/- (in M.V.C.No.134/2010) with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization fastening the liability on the owner/respondent No.1. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the claimants/appellants are before this Court. 5
3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimants/appellants in the accident. Learned counsel further contends that the Tribunal without considering the evidence of the claimants/appellants (PWs-1 and 2) and the documents produced by them, has shifted the liability on respondent No.1 which is illegal and contrary to law. He further places reliance on the documents produced at Exs.P.1, 2 and 4 which disclose that the appellants were traveling with goods as the owner of the goods. But, the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the said evidence while fastening the liability on the owner of the vehicle. Thus, he prays that the compensation determined by the Tribunal requires enhancement and the liability fastened on the owner of the vehicle be shifted on the Insurance Company with which the vehicle was insured.
6
4. The learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company supports the judgment and award of the Tribunal wherein the liability has been shifted on the owner of the vehicle to pay the compensation as the claimants have not proved that they were traveling in the goods vehicle as the owners of the goods and submits that no ground is made out to interfere with the same.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record.
6. A perusal of the impugned judgment and award shows that the Tribunal at paragraph 19 has held that the accident had taken place on 09.10.2011 in the morning and complaint was given at 11.15 a.m. The spot mahazar was also drawn on the same day from 1.30 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. But, in the spot mahazar there was no mentioning of the goods i.e., vegetables lying or scattered on the road. It has further held that if the appellants had really travelled along with their goods, the same would have been 7 mentioned in the mahazar. But, here the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the fact in the cross-examination of PW-1 where he has deposed that they were travelling in the tempo as the owners of the goods i.e., lady's finger bags to sell it in the market. Mere non-mentioning of the goods in the spot mahazar or in the complaint given before the police, does not necessarily mean that the appellants were not at all transporting the same therein, they had rendered positive evidence on record before the Tribunal testifying to the fact of transportation thereof. In support of his case, learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. MOSES DINDANNAVAR (II (1996) ACC 325) .
7. As regards contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the appellants were traveling in the goods vehicle which is not permissible is concerned, the appellants have taken a specific ground that they were 8 traveling in the vehicle as owners of the goods which is permissible under Rule 100 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. In that view of the matter, the said contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company requires to be rejected. Hence, for the above reasons, I pass the following order:
The appeals are allowed. The judgment and award of the Tribunal stands modified to the extent that the Insurance Company is directed to satisfy the award within a period of eight weeks.
Sd/ JUDGE Jm/-