Dismissed

Haseena Begum W/O Late Rajahussain @ Rajasab v. the Divisional Manager

Karnataka HC10 Oct 2023MFA/20746/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad Bench dismissed an appeal seeking enhancement of compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Court held that the Tribunal's award was correct as it was based on personal accident coverage and the deceased's own negligence caused the accident.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the claimants is dismissed.

Haseena Begum W/O Late Rajahussain @ Rajasab Vs the… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12416 MFA No. 20746 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.20746/2012(MV)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

HASEENA BEGUM W/O. LATE RAJAHUSSAIN @ RAJASAB, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD.

¶10

SHAMMU BEGUM D/O. LATE RAJAHUSSAIN @ RAJASAB, AGE: 17 YEARS, OCC: MINOR.

¶11

KATALSAB S/O. LATE RAJAHUSSAIN @ RAJASAB, AGE: 15 YEARS, 2 AND 3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN THEIR MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1.

¶12

KHATUNBEE W/O. LATE NABEESAB, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: NIL, ALL ARE R/O: BASAPATTANA, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶13

…APPELLANTS

¶14

(BY SRI CHANDRASHEKAR P. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶15

Digitally signed by BHARATHI H M

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, GANDHI CHOUK, RAICHUR, DIST: RAICHUR.

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE)

¶20

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND MODIFY THE ORDER DATED 05.06.2008 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT GANGAVATI, IN MVC NO.204/2008 AND AWARD THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED FOR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶21

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

¶23

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12416 MFA No. 20746 of 2012

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

The appeal is filed by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 26.04.2011 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gangavathi, in M.V.C. No.204/2008 for seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶26

In this case, the factum of accident, death of deceased in the said accident and coverage of insurance are not in dispute.

¶27

Heard the arguments from both sides and perused the records.

¶28

The deceased is the owner of the motorcycle

¶29

bearing registration No.KA-37/L-2945 and while riding the motorcycle he met with the accident and died. The charge sheet is filed against the deceased as abated charge sheet. The claimants have filed petition under Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the insurance company. It is proved that on the negligence of the deceased

¶30

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12416 MFA No. 20746 of 2012

¶31

himself, the accident has caused and he died. The respondent/insurance company is insurer of the deceased/owner. The tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- as per insurance policy under the personal accident coverage. Therefore, the claim petition is filed by the claimants against themselves because the deceased is the owner of the motorcycle. Therefore, under these circumstances, the claimants are entitled compensation under personal accident coverage and that is correctly awarded by the tribunal. Therefore, the judgment and award passed by the tribunal is found to be correct. Hence, there is no need to make interference. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

The appeal filed by the claimants is dismissed .

¶34

SD/JUDGE

¶35

SSP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 40 CT-ASC

Haseena Begum W/O Late Rajahussain @ Rajasab v. the Divisional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haseena Begum W/O Late Rajahussain @ Rajasab v. the Divisional Manager

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

M/S. Manjunath Cement Products Vs Ningappa Channabasappa Kolakar

Royal Sundaram Allainace Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs Raju @ Rajappa S/O Giriyappa

Royal Sundaram Allainace Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs Ramappa Siddappa Gondyal

Tinku S/O Fakeerchand Nahar, Vs Sri. Nagarajswamy S/O Basayya Swamy Hosalli

Shri Gireppa S/O Pundalikappa Kolekar Vs Smt. Laxmi @ Laxmavva

Channawwa Vs Shri.Siddayya