Dismissed

Holabasayya S/O Sannholabasayya Mooti v. Appanna S/O Ningappa Mugalolli

Karnataka HC6 Feb 2024MFA/100876/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Owner of a tractor-trailer appealed against a motor accident award fastening liability on him and challenging the compensation quantum after his vehicle injured a cyclist. The court found no valid driving licence was produced, amounting to violation of policy conditions, upheld the Tribunal's order and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; amount in deposit transmitted to the Tribunal; balance compensation to be deposited within four weeks.

Holabasayya S/O Sannholabasayya Mooti Vs Appanna S/O Ningappa… — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:2631 MFA No. 100876 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100876 OF 2014 (MV-I)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

HOLABASAYYA S/O. SANNHOLABASAYYA MOOTI, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF VEHICLE TT UNIT, R/O: NEERBUDIHAL VILLAGE, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. HARISH S.MAIGUR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

APPANNA S/O. NINGAPPA MUGALOLLI, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: SHEPARD, R/O: NEERBUDHIHAL VILLAGE, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶14

Digitally signed by BHARATHI BHARATHI H M H M Date: 2024.02.21 12:00:31 +0530

¶15

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., MELLIGERI COMPLEX, BAGALKOT.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. S.S. KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. PRAKASH N.HOSAMANE, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

¶18

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:27.12.2013, PASSED IN MVC.NO.61/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER MACT NO.III, BAGALKOT, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.1,04,218/WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALISATION.

¶19

THIS M.F.A., COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC-D:2631 MFA No. 100876 of 2014

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Though the matter is listed for admission, by consent of parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

¶24

Heard Shri. Harish S. Maigur, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri. S. S. Koliwad, learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company and Shri. Prakash N. Hosamane, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

¶25

Owner of the Tractor and Trailer bearing registration No.KA-29/TA-3504, 3505 and 3506 (for short ‘T.T.Unit’), is in appeal challenging the validity of judgment and award passed in MVC No.61/2012 dated 27.12.2013 on the file of Member MACT No.III, Bagalkote.

¶26

Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:

¶27

4.1. On 07.11.2010 Appanna was proceeding on a bicycle along with Shri. Hanamant who is the relative. At that juncture, they met with a road traffic accident involving T.T.Unit as aforesaid and they got injured. They were shifted to hospital and therefore, they laid a claim for awarding the compensation.

¶28

Claim petition, on contest came to be allowed by fastening the liability on the owner of the T.T.Unit.

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2631 MFA No. 100876 of 2014

¶30

Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation and fastening the liability on the owner of the T.T.Unit, the present appeal is filed.

¶31

Shri. Harish S. Maigur, learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum vehemently contended that the Tribunal has not properly taken into consideration the material evidence placed on record and wrongly fastened the liability on the appellant and sought for allowing the appeal.

¶32

He also contended that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side and sought for modification of the quantum of compensation.

¶33

Per contra, Shri. S. S. Koliwad, learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company supported the impugned judgment.

¶34

So also counsel for claimant has supported the impugned judgment insofar as, the quantum of compensation and submitted that suitable orders be passed with regard to the liability aspect is concerned.

¶35

Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶36

On such perusal of material on record, it is crystal clear that the claimant who is the second respondent in the present appeal got injured in a road traffic accident involving

¶37

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2631 MFA No. 100876 of 2014

¶38

T.T. Unit as aforesaid when he was proceeding on a bicycle on 07.11.2010. He has been awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.1,04,218/-.

¶39

Claimant has not preferred any appeal challenging the adequacy of the compensation. Therefore, in so far as the claimant is concerned same has become final.

¶40

Further, taking note of the injuries sustained by the claimant and material evidence placed on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that grant of Rs.1,04,218/- is just and proper.

¶41

Now coming to the question of main contention of the appellant that fastening the liability on the owner of T.T.Unit whether correct or not?

¶42

According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Trial Judge erred in fastening the liability on the owner of the T.T. Unit.

¶43

Per contra, Shri. S. S. Koliwad, learned counsel for respondent No.2 supports the impugned judgment by contending that the driver did not have the proper driving license and he has been prosecuted for non holding the driving license for involving Section 3 of Act, in the charge sheet.

¶44

Admittedly, the driving license is not produced by the driver or the owner of the T.T. Unit. Even before this Court there is not material to show that the driver of the T.T.Unit had

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC-D:2631 MFA No. 100876 of 2014

¶47

a valid driving license. Therefore, there is a clear violation of the policy conditions.

¶48

Under such circumstances,, there was no other alternative left open to the Tribunal except to fastened the liability on the owner of the T.T. Unit.

¶49

Accordingly, even after re-appreciation of the material evidence placed on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appeal grounds are hardly sufficient to interfere with the well reasoned order of the Tribunal.

¶50

Accordingly, the following order is passed:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

(i) Appeal is meritless and hereby dismissed.

¶53

(ii) Amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to tribunal.

¶54

(iii) Balance amount of compensation to be deposited within four weeks from today.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

SMM/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 22

Holabasayya S/O Sannholabasayya Mooti v. Appanna S/O Ningappa Mugalolli

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Holabasayya S/O Sannholabasayya Mooti v. Appanna S/O Ningappa Mugalolli

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

Shivamurthy S/O. Venkatappa Vs Chinnaswamy S/O. Subbappa

The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Santosh S/O Ramesh Habib

Sri Gurunath S/O Ramu Gadivaddar Vs Smt. Shilpa W/O Gurunatha Gadiwadar

Dilip Ishwara Salokhe @ Salunke Vs Vasant S/O. Shripati Jagatap

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs M. Ramelsh @ Ramesh S/O Late M Arjunappa

Nagappa S/O Lokanagouda Police Patil Vs Parashuram Rajaram Patil