Allowed

Sharanappa S/O Basappa Mudhol, v. Prakash S/O Mahadevappa Bhojedar

Karnataka HC22 Oct 2019MFA/24383/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In appeals regarding a motor vehicle accident compensation award, the court held that under Mukund Dewangan, an LMV license permits driving transport vehicles, shifting liability from the owner to the insurance company while dismissing the claimant's appeal for higher compensation.

What did the court decide?

Liability fastened on insurance company; cross-objection by owner allowed in part.

Sharanappa S/O Basappa Mudhol, Vs Prakash S/O Mahadevappa Bhojedar — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

¶6

MFA CROB No.100035/2019 C/w. MFA No.24383/2013(MV)

¶7

IN MFA CROB No.100035/2019 IN MFA No.24383/2013(MV)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

PRAKASH S/O MAHADEVAPPA BHOJEDAR AGE : 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & OWNER, R/O NANDEESHWAR NAGAR, KALASAPUR ROAD, GADAG, TQ & DIST: GADAG-581118.

¶10

... CROSS OBJECTOR

¶11

(By SRI H. N. GULARADDI, ADV.)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SHARANAPPA S/O BASAPPA MUDHOL AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRI R/O ABBIGERI, TQ:L RON, DIST: GADAG-581117.

¶14

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, APMC YARD, PC & RD BANK BUILDING , 1ST FLOOR, GADAG,

¶15

TQ: & DIST: GADAG-581117.

¶16

... RESPONDENTS (By SRI MRUTYUNJAYA S. HALLIKERI, ADV. FOR R1 SRI. S.S. JOSHI, ADV. FOR R2)

¶17

THIS MFA-CROB IN MFA NO.24383/2013 IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.08.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.4/2012

¶18

¶19

ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GADAG, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF Rs.28,500/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

¶20

IN MFA NO.24383/2013

¶21

BETWEEN:

¶22

SHARANAPPA S/O. BASAPPA MUDHOL, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: ABBIGERI, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG. (By SRI. MRUTYUNJAYA S. HALLIKERI, ADV.)

¶23

... APPELLANT

¶24

AND:

¶25

PRAKASH S/O MAHADEVAPPA BHOJEDAR, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NANDEESHWARA NAGAR, KALASAPUR ROAD, GADAG, TQ & DIST: GADAG.

¶26

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., APMC YARD, PC & RD BANK BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR, GADAG, TQ & DIST: GADAG.

¶27

... RESPONDENTS

¶28

(By SRI. H N GULARADDI, ADV. FOR R1) SRI. S.S. JOSHI, ADV. FOR R2)

¶29

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.08.2013, PASSED MVC NO.4/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT GADAG, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶30

¶31

CROSS-OBJECTION AND APPEAL ARE COMING ON FOR HEARING ON I.A., THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

The appeal in MFA No.24383/2013 is filed by the appellant–claimant and the cross-objection in MFA Crob.No.100035/2019 is filed by the owner of the vehicle challenging the judgment and award dated 07.08.2013, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge at Gadag (for short “the Tribunal”) in MVC No.4/2012, whereby the tribunal has awarded global compensation of Rs.28,500/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit and fastened the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle.

¶34

For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the tribunal.

¶35

The brief facts of the case are that on 04.04.2011 at about 6.30 p.m. the petitioner was returning from the land of one Basavaraj Ramappa Sidnekoppa in his bullock cart loading two bags of

¶36

¶37

agricultural commodities. When he reached near the land of Basavaraj Herur on the Abbigeri Kotumachagi cross at that time TATA ACE bearing registration No.KA26/6766 which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed to the bullock cart. As a result, the front portion of the bullock cart was damaged. Due to the impact, the petitioner and three others fell down in nala and sustained injuries. One of the bullocks sustained injuries and died. The petitioner has filed claim petition in MVC No.4/2019.

¶38

To establish his case, the claimant has examined two witnesses and marked 11 documents. On the other hand, the insurance company has examined two witnesses and got marked three documents.

¶39

On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence the tribunal has awarded global compensation of Rs.28,500/- with interest @ 6% p.a. and fastened the liability on the owner of the vehicle.

¶40

¶41

Sri. H.N. Gularaddi, the learned counsel appearing for cross objector/owner has contended that the liability has been fastened on the owner of the vehicle on the ground that as on the date of accident the driver of TATA ACE vehicle bearing registration No.KA266766 was not holding valid driving license and was having only LMV license for non transport. He further contended that as per the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental

¶42

Insurance Company Limited and others reported in AIR 2017 SC 3668 , the driver holding LMV licence can drive all vehicles of class including transport vehicle and no separate endorsement is required to drive such transport vehicles. Hence, the learned counsel for the appellant–claimant sought for allowing the appeal.

¶43

Sri. Mrutyunjaya S. Hallikeri, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-claimant has contended that due to the accident a bullock suffered grievous injuries and died and the cart was also

¶44

¶45

damaged. He had produced Ex.P11 to show that he had spent Rs.32,880/- towards repairing the cart and the tribunal was not justified in awarding Rs.5,000/- towards repairing of bullock cart. Hence, he sought for enhancement of compensation.

¶46

Sri. S.S. Joshi, the learned counsel for Insurance company has contended that it is admitted fact that as on the date of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was having only LMV non transport driving license, but, he was driving the transport vehicle by violating the policy conditions. Therefore, the tribunal rightly fastened the liability on the owner of the vehicle. He further contended that on the basis of material available on record, the tribunal has rightly granted a global compensation of Rs.28,500/-. Hence, learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

¶47

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶48

It is not in dispute that the bullock sustained

¶49

injuries and died on the spot on 04.04.2011 due to rash

¶50

¶51

and negligent driving of driver of TATA ACE bearing registration No.KA -26/6766, which occurred on that day. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (Supra), the driver holding LMV licence can drive all vehicles of class including transport vehicle and no separate endorsement is required to drive such transport vehicles. In view of the above, the tribunal was not justified in fastening the liability on the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, liability has to be fastened on the insurance company. Accordingly, crossobjection filed by the owner of the vehicle in MFA Crob No.100035/2019 is allowed in part. The insurance company is made liable to pay the compensation awarded by the tribunal.

¶52

The appeal filed by the claimant in MFA No.24383/2013 is concerned, the tribunal on the basis of evidence produced by the parties and on the basis of deposition of PW1 and 2 and on the basis of Ex.P1 has rightly assessed the global compensation of Rs.28,500/-

¶53

¶54

and I do not find any error in the compensation awarded

¶55

by the tribunal. Hence, the appeal filed by the claimant

¶56

in MFA No.24383/2013 is hereby dismissed.

¶57

Insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶58

The tribunal is directed to disburse the amount after due verification.

¶59

The office is directed to refund the amount deposited, if any, in MFA Crob No.100035/2019 to the cross-objector.

¶60

MNS/-

¶61

Sd/JUDGE

Sharanappa S/O Basappa Mudhol, v. Prakash S/O Mahadevappa Bhojedar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharanappa S/O Basappa Mudhol, v. Prakash S/O Mahadevappa Bhojedar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna Naik S/O Seena Naik Vs Siddappa Adavi S/O Parasappa Adavi

National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Sri.Mahabasha Alias Sanna Mahabasha

Krishna Naik S/O. Seena Naik Vs Siddapa Adavi S/O. Parasappa Adavi

Shri.Lagamanna Vs Shri.Prakash @ Paresh

V Gopalakrishna S/O Sarvagnashetti, Vs Ganesh @ Ganapathi S/O. Fomanaik

Kutubudin Aminsab Elur Vs Divisional Manager