Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager, National ... vs Yallawwa W/O Yallappa Nandaganva on 20 October, 2020
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Dated this the 20th day of October 2020
Before
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANAGOUDAR
M.F.A No.103479 of 2015 (MV)
C/w M.F.A. No.101646 of 2015 (MV)
In MFA No.103479/2015
Between
Smt.Yallawwa
W/O Yallappa Nandaganva
Age:51 Years, Occ:Coolie Now Nil
R/O:Makkalageri, Now Residing at
Bailhongal, Dist:Belagavi. ...Appellant
(By Sri. Gurukumar V.A., Advocate)
And
1. Shri.Dasharath
S/O Basavanni Madalbhavi
Age: Major, Occ:Business
R/O: Makkalageri,
Tq: Gokak, Dist:Belagavi
2. The Divisional Manager
National Insurance Company Limited,
Ramdev Galli, Belagavi. ...Respondents
(By Sri. G.N.Raichur, Advocate for R2) (R1 - served)
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and
2
award dated 02.02.2015 passed in MVC No.2818 of
2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Member
Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bailhongal,
partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and
seeking enhancement of compensation.
In MFA No 101646 Of 2015
Between
The Divisional Manager,
National Insurance Co.Ltd.
Ramdev Galli Belagavi,
Now Rep By Its Deputy Manager
S.K. Hosmani
Regional Office, Arihant Arcade,
Kusugal Road, Keshwapur, Hubballi. ...Appellant
(By Sri. G.N. Raichur, Advocate)
And
1. Smt. Yallawwa
W/O Yallappa Nandaganva
Age:51 Years, Occ.Coolie (Now Nil)
R/O Makkalageri Now Residing at
Bailhongal, Dist. Belagavi
2. Dasharath S/O Basavvanni Madalbhavi
Age: Major, Occ. Business
R/O Makkalageri, Tq. Gokak
Dist. Belagavi. ...Respondents
(By Sri. Gurukumar V.A., Advocate for R1)
(R2 - served)
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and
3
award dated 02.02.2015 passed in MVC No.2818 of
2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Member,
Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bailhongal,
awarding compensation of Rs.3,39,000/- with current
and future interest at the rate of 9% per annum from
the date of petition till realization.
These MFAs coming on for Admission this day, the
Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
These appeals are filed against the judgment and award dated 02.02.2015 passed by the Senior Civil Judge & Additional MACT, Bailhongal (for short, 'the Tribunal'), in M.V.C. No.2818 of 2012.
2. Claimant suffered accidental injuries on 07.05.2012 due to rash and negligent driving of Mahindra Jeep by its driver. She filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for awarding just and proper compensation.
3. The Tribunal, by its judgment and award dated 02.02.2015, awarded a total compensation of 4 Rs.3,39,000/- with interest at 9% per annum. The owner as well as the insurer of the Mahindra Jeep were held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Further, the Tribunal directed the insurer of the Mahindra Jeep to deposit the compensation.
4. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award of the Tribunal, the insurer of the Mahindra Jeep has filed M.F.A. No.101646 of 2015 challenging the liability fastened on it, and the injured claimant has filed M.F.A. No.103479 of 2015 seeking enhancement of the compensation.
5. The leaned counsel for the appellant- insurance company submits that the claimant was traveling as a gratuitous passenger at the time of the accident and as such, the liability to pay the compensation could not have been fastened on the insurance company.
5
6. The learned counsel for the claimant justifies the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal insofar as fastening of liability to pay the compensation on the insurance company as well as on the owner of the jeep. Learned counsel relies on a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Narasamma and others Vs. M.Saibaba and another reported in 2004 ACJ 1608
7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
8. As per the statement given before the police at Ex.P.9, on the date of the accident, the claimant had alighted from Mahindra Jeep and when she was about to take the luggage, the driver of the Mahindra Jeep took the vehicle in reverse direction rashly and negligently resulting in causing of injuries to the claimant. The Tribunal taking into consideration the contents of Ex.P.9 6 has recorded a finding that the claimant cannot be termed as a gratuitous passenger, but she was a third party. The Tribunal has also taken into consideration that the charge sheet was filed against the driver of the Mahindra Jeep and that the driver was convicted in the criminal case. The Tribunal has rightly held that the claimant is a third party and fastened the liability jointly and severally on the insurer as well as the owner of the Mahindra Jeep. In the absence of any evidence contrary to the finding recorded by the Tribunal, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the award passed by the Tribunal.
9. Insofar as the appeal filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation is concerned, it is seen that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and it does not call for any interference.
10. Accordingly, both the appeals i.e., M.F.A. No.101646 of 2015 filed by the insurance company and 7 M.F.A. No.103479 of 2015 filed by the claimant are dismissed.
The amount in deposit before this Court be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement in accordance with law.
The claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE Kms