The Divisional Manager Vs Basawwa W/O Yamanappa Pujar @ Pujari

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10870 MFA No. 100032 of 2015

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100032 OF 2015 (MV-)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, D.O.CLUB ROAD, BELGAUM (INSURER OF TRACTOR BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KA 29/M-206) RPTD. BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, II FLOOR, SUMANGALA COMPLEX, LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBBALLI.

¶7

…APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADV)

¶9

AND:

¶10

SMT. BASAWWA W/O YAMANAPPA PUJAR @ PUJARI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. BATAKURKI, TALUK: RAMDURG, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶11

MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR

¶12

Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.09.09 12:06:19 +0530

¶13

YALLAPPA S/O YAMANAPPA PUJAR @ PUJARI, AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. BATAKURKI, TALUK: RAMDURG, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶14

SMT. DURGAWWA D/O YAMANAPPA PUJAR @ PUJARI, AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. BATAKURKI, TALUK: RAMDURG, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶15

SMT. MARAGAWWA W/O MALIYAPPA PUJAR @ PUJARI, AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. BATAKURKI, TALUK: RAMDURG, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶16

MAHANTESH SHIVAPPA PATTANSHETTI AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. BATAKURKI, TALUK: RAMDURG,

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10870 MFA No. 100032 of 2015

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

DIST: BELAGAVI. (OWNER OF TRACTOR BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KA 29/M-206)

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. SHIVRAJ S. BALLOLI, ADV FOR R1 TO R4, NOTICE TO R5 IS SERVED)

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:20.09.2014, PASSED IN MVC. NO.442/2012, ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT-V, BELAGAVI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.3,67,700/- ALONG WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION.

¶24

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)

¶28

This Miscellaneous First Appeal No.100032/2015

¶29

is filed by the Insurance Company, challenging the Judgment and award dated 20.09.2014 passed in MVC No.442/2012 by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge and Member MACT-V, Belagavi (for short

¶30

‘the Tribunal’).

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10870 MFA No. 100032 of 2015

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

For convenience, the parties are referred to

¶34

based on their rankings before the Tribunal.

¶35

Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

¶36

On, 05.05.2011, at about 10.30 PM, the deceased Yamanappa was proceeding towards the land by walk from one land to another land. At that time, a tractor bearing registration No.KA-29/M-206 moving in the land driven by its driver abruptly took the Tractor in the reverse direction without observing the traffic rules and dashed to Yamanappa. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries, and succumbed to the same. The petitioners spent a huge amount towards the medical expenses and filed a claim petition under section 163(A) of the M.V.Act seeking a compensation for the death caused in the road traffic accident.

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10870 MFA No. 100032 of 2015

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

A Notice was served to owner of the tractor.

¶40

Despite the service of notice, the owner remained unrepresented and was placed ex-parte.

¶41

The Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying averments made in the claim petition and contended there is a delay of one day in lodging the complaint, and there is a violation of policy conditions and the driver did not posses a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the Insurance Company.

¶42

The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues.

¶43

The petitioner, to substantiate their case, petitioner No.1 was examined as PW-1, and marked 8 documents as Ex.P1 to P8. In rebuttal, the official of the Insurance Company was examined as RW-1, and marked 17 documents as Ex.R1 to R17.

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10870 MFA No. 100032 of 2015

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part vide judgment dated 20.09.2014, and awarded the compensation of Rs.3,67,700/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till its realization . It is held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation, and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount.

¶47

The Insurance Company, being aggrieved by the Judgment and award passed in MVC No.442/2012, preferred this Miscellaneous First Appeal.

¶48

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company and the petitioners.

¶49

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the deceased was travelling in the tractor as an unauthorized passenger. He submits that there is a breach of policy conditions, and the Tribunal has not adequately appreciated the evidence on record and

¶50

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10870 MFA No. 100032 of 2015

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

committed an error in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.

¶53

Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Yamanappa was walking in the land, at that time, the driver of the tractor suddenly moved the vehicle in reverse direction and dashed to the deceasedYamanappa. As a result, deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. He submits that the accident occurred due to a rash and negligent driving of the tractor, by its driver and the Tribunal was justified in saddling the liability on the Insurance Company. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶54

Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶55

The point that would arise for consideration is regarding liability .

¶56

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10870 MFA No. 100032 of 2015

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

There is no dispute that the deceased

¶59

Yamanappa met with an accident, sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. A criminal case was registered against the driver of the tractor, and a charge sheet was filed against him, which is marked as Ex.P6. The Tribunal was justified in recording the finding that the accident occurred due to a rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle/ Tractor.

¶60

Regarding Liability

¶61

The Insurance Company contended that the deceased was travelling in the tractor as an unauthorized passenger. Though, the Insurance Company has filed the statement of objections. Admittedly, the deceased was moving from one land to another land, at that time the driver of the tractor has moved the tractor in the rear direction and as a result the tractor dashed to Yamanappa. Hence, he sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The Tribunal was justified in holding that the

¶62

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10870 MFA No. 100032 of 2015

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

deceased was neither sitting on the tractor nor on the Rotor. Hence, the Tribunal rightly saddled the liability on the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company has not examined any eye-witnesses to establish that the deceased travelled in the tractor. The Tribunal was justified in saddling the liability on the Insurance Company and directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners. Therefore, I do not find any error in the impugned Judgment. Hence, I concur the findings recorded by the Tribunal.

¶65

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶66

ORDER

¶67

(i) The Appeal is dismissed.

¶68

(ii) The Judgment and award passed in MVC No.442/2012 dated 20.09.2014 by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge and Member MACT-V, Belagavi, is hereby confirmed.

¶69