Dismissed

Reliance General Insurance Company Cover v. Parashuram Siddappa Malagi

Karnataka HC17 Aug 2017MFA/101431/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka addressed two motor vehicle claim appeals totaling less than `10,000/- each. Relying on statutory provisions and precedents, the court held that appeals are not maintainable when the disputed amount is below `10,000/, thus dismissing the appeals without examining merit.

What did the court decide?

The appeals were dismissed as not maintainable due to the disputed amount being below `10,000/-.

Reliance General Insurance Company Cover Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2017)

¶1

M.F.A No.101431/2017 C/w. M.F.A No.101433/2017

¶2

: 1 :

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^th DAY OF AUGUST, 2017

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

¶7

MFA No.101431/2017 (MV) C/w. MFA No.101433/2017

¶8

IN MFA No.101431/2017

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, COVER NOTE NO.C1406532340000256, MAHADEV PLAZA, CTS NO.10719, NEAR KOLHAPUR CIRCLE, NEHRU NAGAR, BELAGAVI – 590018, INSURER OF VEHICLE NO.KA-23/A-5879, REPTD. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY.

¶11

... APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. G.N.RAICHUR & SMT. S.G.RAICHUR, ADVS.)

¶13

AND:

¶14

1 PARASHURAM SIDDAPPA MALAGI,

¶15

AGE 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & MILK VENDING, (NOW NIL) R/O. MANIKWADI, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI – 590018

¶16

M.F.A No.101431/2017 C/w. M.F.A No.101433/2017

¶17

: 2 :

¶18

2 SHRI ARJUN MUTTAPPA BASARAGI, AGE MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. KANKANWAD, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI – 590018, (OWNER OF VEHICLE BEARING No.KA-23/A-5879)

¶19

...RESPONDENTS ---

¶20

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.11.2016, PASSED IN MVC NO.1789/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF `8,000/ALONG WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 9% FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION.

¶21

IN MFA No.101433/2017

BETWEEN:

... APPELLANT

(BY SRI. G.N.RAICHUR & SMT. S.G.RAICHUR, ADVS.)

¶26

AND:

¶27

1 SHRI KIRAN BASAVARAJ SARANNAVAR, AGE 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT & MILK VENDING, R/O. MANIKWADI, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI – 590018 SINCE MINOR REPTD. BY HIS NATURAL MOTHER

¶28

M.F.A No.101431/2017 C/w. M.F.A No.101433/2017

¶29

: 3 :

¶30

SMT. SUMITRA BASAVARAJ SARANNAVAR, AGE 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. MANIKWADI, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI – 590018.

¶31

2 SHRI ARJUN MUTTAPPA BASARAGI, AGE MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. KANKANWAD, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI (OWNER OF VEHICLE BEARING No.KA-23/A-5879)

¶32

...RESPONDENTS ---

¶33

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.11.2016, PASSED IN MVC NO.2213/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF `6,000/ALONG WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 9% FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION.

¶34

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants in both the matters regarding admission. Perused the memorandum of appeal, impugned Judgment and award.

¶37

The appellants in both the matters were the common respondent No.2 in MVC No.1789/2014 and

¶38

M.F.A No.101431/2017 C/w. M.F.A No.101433/2017

¶39

: 4 :

¶40

MVC No.2213/2014 filed before the VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, which came to be partly allowed by awarding a compensation of a sum of 8,000/- and 6,000/- respectively.

¶41

The appellants in both the matters have

¶42

preferred these appeals under section 173 (1) of the M.V.Act, 1988. The quantum of compensation awarded by

¶43

the Tribunal in the impugned Judgment and award is a global compensation of a sum of 8,000/- and 6,000/respectively. Accordingly, the present memorandum of appeals are also valued at 8,000/- and 6,000/respectively. Section 173 of the M.V.Act, 1988 speaks about the appeals. Section 173 (2) of the M.V.Act, reads as below :

¶44

“ No appeal shall lie against any award of a Claims Tribunal if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than ten thousand rupees”.

¶45

By a reading of the above section, it is clear that for

¶46

maintaining any appeal under section 173 of the said Act, the award of the claims Tribunal must be of `10,000/-

¶47

M.F.A No.101431/2017 C/w. M.F.A No.101433/2017

¶48

: 5 :

¶49

and above. In the instant cases, as already observed, the quantum of award amount is only 8,000/- and 6,000/respectively. In this regard a Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in New India Assurance Co, Ltd., Vs. Meghnath

¶50

and another , reported in 2001 ACJ 627 can be considered. In the said Judgment at para No.7, it is observed as below :

¶51

“It may be seen that the legislature has enacted section 173, sub-sections (1) and (2) with the purpose that against the award for a sum below ` 10,000/- no appeal should be filed. The legislative intent on the point is clear that finality is attached to such awards. The letter and spirit of the legislative intent must be given full effect to and should not be allowed to get rid of by adopting circuitous method of filing revision under section 115, Civil Procedure Code or a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.”

¶52

Similarly, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in

¶53

Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co, Ltd., Vs. Sidramappa S/o. Somanna Jattar and another in MFA No.200782/2014 and connected matter , disposed of on

¶54

M.F.A No.101431/2017 C/w. M.F.A No.101433/2017

¶55

: 6 :

¶56

13.04.2015 was pleased to observe that where the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if were to be less than 10,000/-, appeal under section 173 (2) is not maintainable. In view of the clear statutory provisions under Section 173(2) of the M.V.Act, 1988 and in the light of the above referred Judgment, the present appeals where in the quantum of the award passed by the claims Tribunal under the impugned Judgment and awards is less than 10,000/-, the present appeal is not maintainable.

¶57

Accordingly, the present appeals are disposed of. However, the above observation will not come in the way of disposal of the other MFA’s filed if any, with respect to the other MVC cases disposed of by the same Tribunal on the same day under a common Judgment.

¶58