Remanded

Smt. Ratna W/O Sangappa Hoogar v. Mallkarjun S/O Mahadevappa Ayatti

Karnataka HC10 Feb 2017MFA/20655/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed and remanded a miscellaneous first appeal and cross objection regarding a motor accident compensation claim. It directed that the matter be remanded for fresh consideration of insurance validity and enhanced compensation claims.

What did the court decide?

The appeal and cross objection are allowed and remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. The application for production of additional documents is allowed. The deposit amount is refunded to th

Smt. Ratna W/O Sangappa Hoogar Vs Mallkarjun S/O… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.20655 OF 2013

¶7

CONNECTED WITH

¶8

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL CROSS OBJECTION

¶9

No.100073 OF 2014

¶10

IN M.F.A.No.20655/2013

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

Smt. Ratna, Wife of Sangappa Hoogar, Age: 32 years, Occupation: House Hold Work, Resident of Hirekumbi, Taluk: Saundatti, District: Belgaum.

¶13

Kumar Sachin, Son of Sangappa Hoogar, Age 12 years, Occupation: Student, Resident of Hirekumbi, Taluk: Saundatti,

¶14

¶15

District: Belgaum.

¶16

Kumar Shiddarth, Sonof Sangappa Hoogar, Age: 10 years, Occupation: Student, Resident of Hirekumbi, Taluk: Saundatti, District: Belgaum.

¶17

Kumar Sagar, Son of Sangappa Hoogar, Age: 6 years, Occupation: Student, Resident of Hirekumbi, Taluk: Saundatti, District: Belgaum. [appellant nos. 2 to 4 are Minors, represented by appellant no.1 Natural mother – minor guardian] …APPELLANTS

¶18

(By Smt. Shaila Bellikatti, Advocate)

¶19

AND:

¶20

Mallikarjun, Son of Mahadevappa Ayatti, Age:Major, Occupation: Business, Resident of Hirekumbi, Taluk: Saundatti, District: Belgaum.

¶21

¶22

Sayyada, Son of Dastagir Shekh, Major, Occupation: Business, Resident of Kadaganoor, Taluk: Athani, District: Belgaum. [owner of Tractor bearing No.KA-23/TA-1039] 3. Shree Ram General Insurance Company Limited, Office Code 10003, Head Office III E-8 RIICO Industrial Area, Sitapur, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302 022. [under policy No.10003/31/11/ 407355 valid from 24.12.2010 to 23.12.2011]

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(By Shri Santosh S. Hattikatagi, Advocate for Respondent No.1;

¶25

Shri Subhash B. Sankad, Advocate for Respondent No.2; Shri Nagaraj C. Kolloori, Advocate for Respondent No.3)

¶26

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Award dated 26.11.2012 passed in MVC No.1707/2011 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Member AMACT, Saundatti at Saundatti, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶27

¶28

IN M.F.A. CROB No.100073/2014

¶29

BETWEEN:

¶30

Mallikarjun, Son of Mahadevappa Ayatti, Age: 48 years, Occupation: Business, Resident of Hirekumbi, Taluk: Soundatti, District : Belgaum. …CROSS OBJECTOR

¶31

(By Shri Santosh S. Hattikatagi, Advocate)

¶32

AND:

¶33

Smt. Ratna, Wife of Sangappa Hoogar, Age: 32 years, Occupation: Household Work, Resident of Hirekumbi, Taluk: Soundatti, District: Belgaum.

¶34

Kumar: Sachin, Son of Sangappa Hoogar, Age: 12 years, Occupation: Student, Resident of Hirekumbi, Taluk: Soundatti, District: Belgaum.

¶35

Kumar: Shiddarth, Son of Sangappa Hoogar,

¶36

¶37

Age: 10 years, Occupation: Student, Resident of Hirekumbi, Taluk: Soundatti, District: Belgaum.

¶38

Kumar: Sagar, Son of Sangappa Hoogar, Age: 6 years, Occupation: Student, Resident of Hirekumbi, Taluk Soundatti, District: Belgaum. [appellant Nos. 2 to 4 are Minors, represented by Minor guardian respondent No.1]

¶39

Sayyada, Son of Dastagir Shekha, Major, Occupation: Business, Resident of Kadagannor, Taluk: Athani, District: Belgaum. 6. Shree Ram General Insurance Company Limited, Office Code: 1003, Head Office III #-*, RIICO Industrial Area, Sita Pura, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302 022.

¶40

…RESPONDENTS

¶41

¶42

(By Smt. Shaila Bellikatti, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 4; [respondent nos. 2 to 4 are minors represented by respondent no.1]

¶43

Shri Subhash B. Sankad, Advocate for Respondent No.5; Shri Nagaraj C. Kolloori, Advocate for Respondent No.6 )

¶44

¶45

This Miscellaneous First Appeal Crob. In MFA No.20655/2013 is filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of C.P.C., against the judgment and award dated 26.11.2012 passed in MVC No.1707/2011 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT., Saundatti, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶46

This Miscellaneous First Appeal and Cross Objection coming on for Admission this day, the court made the following:

¶47

J U D G M E N T

¶48

The appeal is filed by the claimants and the Cross Objection is filed by the owner of the TATA ACE vehicle bearing No.KA-24/5733. The Tribunal having awarded compensation, has fastened the liability on the owner of the vehicle, though the vehicle in question was duly insured. This was the reason why the owner of the vehicle had remained ex parte inspite of notice of the proceedings and had not chosen to

¶49

¶50

produce relevant documents to establish that the vehicle was duly insured and was being driven by a valid license holder. It is only now that the owner of the vehicle has woken up to the situation. Hence the present Cross Objection.

¶51

If indeed the vehicle in question was insured, it is just and necessary that there be reconsideration of the claim for compensation. Since the claimants are also before this court, it would be appropriate if the matter is remanded for a fresh consideration, whereby the Tribunal will not only address the validity or otherwise of the insurance coverage and the liability of the insurer, but also the claim for enhanced compensation made by the claimants. Therefore, it is just and necessary that the application filed in IA 3/2014 in the Cross Objections for production of additional documents is taken on record.

¶52

Accordingly, the application in IA.3/2014 is allowed. The appeal as well as the Cross Objections are allowed and remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.

¶53

¶54

The owner of the vehicle shall be permitted to produce

¶55

original documents and agitate the matter.

¶56

The amount in deposit be refunded to the Cross-objector.

¶57

Sd/JUDGE

¶58

Smt. Ratna W/O Sangappa Hoogar v. Mallkarjun S/O Mahadevappa Ayatti

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Ratna W/O Sangappa Hoogar v. Mallkarjun S/O Mahadevappa Ayatti

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhimappa Ramappa Dasa Age 40 Years, Vs Govind Bandhu Jadhav Age Major, Occ Not Known

Sri. Venkatesh S/O Venkanagouda Rayanagoudar Vs Sri. Gadigeppa S/O Bhimappa Kanannavar

Rasoolbi S/O Fakirsab Yendigeri, Vs the Divisional Manager

Davalsab S/O Imamsab Hebasur Vs Mehaboobsab S/O Abdulkareem Khaji

Bharama Ningappa Kundannavar, Vs Dilip Mohan Shewale

Reliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., Vs Sangappa S/O. Vasudev Surkod