Dismissed

The Branch Manager v. Smt.Shakunthalamma W/O Late Murtheppa

Karnataka HC8 Feb 2024MFA/100066/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this first appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the High Court of Karnataka declined to admit the appeal challenging a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that admission was inappropriate as the alleged absence of a valid driving license was not substantiated by evidence.

What did the court decide?

Admission of the first appeal declined; appeal dismissed; amount in deposit transmitted to the Tribunal.

The Branch Manager Vs Smt.Shakunthalamma W/O Late… — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2842 MFA No. 100066 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100066 OF 2016 (MV-D)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, BALLARI, REP. BY THE DEPUTY MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. SHARMILA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

BHARATHI H M

¶12

Digitally signed by BHARATHI H M Date: 2024.02.21 11:59:27 +0530

¶13

SMT. SHAKUNTHALAMMA, W/O. LATE MURTHEPPA, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O. WARD NO.3, JALI NAGARA, HOSPET ROAD, H.B.HALLI, NOW R/O. KAPPAGAL ROAD, BALLARI.

¶14

NAGARAJA S/O. LATE MURTHEPPA,

¶15

AGE: 25 YEARS, R/O. WARD NO.3, JALI NAGARA, HOSPET ROAD, H. B. HALLI, NOW RESIDING AT: KAPPAGAL ROAD, BALLARI.

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2842 MFA No. 100066 of 2016

¶17

SHIVARAJA S/O. LATE MURTHEPPA, AGE: 23 YEARS, R/O. WARD NO.3, JALI NAGARA, HOSPET ROAD, H. B. HALLI, NOW R/O. KAPPAGAL ROAD, BALLARI.

¶18

KUMARI LAKSHMI D/O. LATE MURTHEPPA AGE: 18 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O. WARD NO.3, JALI NAGARA, HOSPET ROAD, H. B. HALLI, NOW RESIDING AT: KAPPAGAL ROAD, BALLARI.

¶19

R. SUBHASH REDDY, S/O. R. BALLAPPA REDDY, AGE: MAJOR, DRIVER CUM OWNER OF THE TVS XL SUPER HEAVY DUTY BEARING REG NO.KA-35/W-1714, R/O. ANKASAMUDRA POST IN H. B. HALLI TALUKA OF BALLARI DISTRICT.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 4 HELD SUFFICIENT, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.5 SERVED)

¶22

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND WARD DATED 05.08.2015 PASSED BY THE MACT-XII BALLARI IN M.V.C NO.54/2013 ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND TO PASS ANY OTHER ORDER AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶23

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

¶24

- 3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2842 MFA No. 100066 of 2016

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Heard Smt.Sharmila M. Patil, learned counsel for the

¶27

appellant. No representation on behalf of the

¶28

respondents.

¶29

Insurance Company is in appeal challenging the validity of the judgment and award passed in MVC No.54/2013 dated 05.08.2015 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – XII, Ballari.

¶30

Brief facts of the case which are utmost

¶31

necessary for disposal of the appeal are as under:

¶32

K. Murtheppa died in a road traffic accident on

¶33

09.09.2012 at about 7.00 a.m. on H.B.Halli – Hospet Tar

¶34

road in front of K.K. Work shop in H.B.Halli, due to rash and negligent riding of a two wheeler vehicle bearing No.KA.35/W.1714.

¶35

Claim petition on contest, came to be allowed by granting a sum of Rs.3,29,800/-.

¶36

Claimants have not chosen to file any appeal. Insurance Company is in appeal stating that the very accident itself is not established by the claimants, in a

¶37

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2842 MFA No. 100066 of 2016

¶38

proper manner and Tribunal ignored the evidence of eye witness and rider of two wheeler did not have the valid driving license and therefore, sought for allowing the appeal.

¶39

Since, respondent have remained absent, this Court perused the material on record, meticulously.

¶40

In view of the arguments put forth on behalf of the Insurance Company, admittedly, claimant No.1 – Smt.Shakunthalamma, who is the wife of deceased, is examined as P.W.1. She has produced police papers and post-martem report vide Exs.P.1 to 8.

¶41

As against the said evidence, officer of the Insurance Company is examined as R.W.1 and placed copy of the policy and charge sheet on record.

¶42

Tribunal on contest, allowed the claim petition

¶43

in a sum of Rs.3,29,800/- and directed that the owner and Insurance Company are together liable to pay adjunct compensation with interest at 7% p.a.

¶44

Insofar as, liability of the Insurance Company is concerned, the same is discussed in detail in paragraph

¶45

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2842 MFA No. 100066 of 2016

¶46

No.7. Insurance Company has taken a contention that

¶47

they have got investigated the matter about the rider of the two wheeler, having the driving license or not and they came to know that the rider of two wheeler did not have the driving license. However, such investigation report is not placed on record nor any investigator is examined on behalf of respondent No.2. The rider of the two wheeler, not holding the driving license is the plea taken by the Insurance Company.

¶48

Therefore, it was required to prove the same by placing necessary evidence on record. Except the oral evidence of R.W.1, no other material evidence is placed on record. Therefore, Tribunal was justified in holding that Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation.

¶49

Insofar as the quantum is concerned, if there is an appeal by the claimants, they are entitled for the enhanced compensation. Since, the claimants have not chosen to file any appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation and have remained absent before this Court

¶50

¶51

NC: 2024:KHC-D:2842 MFA No. 100066 of 2016

¶52

despite service of notice, there is no scope for awarding

¶53

enhanced compensation.

¶54

Hence, following:

¶55

ORDER

¶56

(i) Admission declined

¶57

(ii) Appeal is dismissed.

¶58

(iii) Amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted

¶59

to the Tribunal.

¶60

Sd/JUDGE

¶61

KAV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 32

The Branch Manager v. Smt.Shakunthalamma W/O Late Murtheppa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Branch Manager v. Smt.Shakunthalamma W/O Late Murtheppa

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

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Shri Chidanand S/O Shankar Nemagoudar

Mariyappa S/O Basappa Tidi Vs Madhu @ Mudukappa S/O Basappa

The Manager, Vs Smt.Sujathamma @ C. Sujatha

The Manager Uniged India Insu.Co.Ltd., Vs Sharanappa Bhimappa Jogi

Ramzansab S/O Hazaresab Vatnal Vs K P Chikkarangaiah S/O Puttaswamaiah

The Managing Director Vs Shri.Prabhakar Annu Pujari