Hanamappa S/O Bennappa Kaladagi, Vs Shashikala W/O Mallikarjun Sunagad

(RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1 AS MINOR GUARDIAN) ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF SONNA VILLAGE, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ABHISHEK BARIGIDAD, ADV. FOR SRI. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 TO R4 ARE MINORS R/BY R1)

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12372 MFA No. 100331 of 2015

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE LOWER COURT RECORDS, PERUSE THE SAME AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.09.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO. 101/2012 BY THE LEARNED MEMBER, MACT-VII, BILAGI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

This Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘M.V.Act,’ for short) by the owner of the vehicle in question, challenging the judgment and award dated 21.09.2013 passed in MVC No.101/2012 by the learned MACT-VII, Bilagi.

¶24

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

¶25

On 11.12.2011, the deceased Mallikarjun was

¶26

proceeding on his motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-29/U9480. When the said motorcycle reached near the land of one Somappayya Swamy, the driver of the Tractor and Trailer bearing Reg.No.KA-48/T-3960/3961, came from the opposite direction, in a rash and negligent manner, and

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12372 MFA No. 100331 of 2015

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

dashed to the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. Thus, the legal representatives of the deceased Mallikarjun filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act claiming compensation on account of the death of the deceased in a road traffic accident.

¶30

Respondent-owner of the offending vehicle appeared through the counsel, however, did not file any statement of objections.

¶31

The petitioners to substantiate their case, petitioner No.1 was examined as P.W.1, and marked 12 documents as Exs.P1 to P12.

¶32

The Tribunal, after hearing the petitioners, framed the relevant points for consideration.

¶33

The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, and awarded compensation of Rs.8,06,000/- with interest at

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12372 MFA No. 100331 of 2015

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of

¶38

deposit, and held that the respondent-owner of the offending vehicle is liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners. The owner of the offending vehicle, aggrieved by the judgment and award passed in MVC No.101/2012, has filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal.

¶39

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for

¶40

the owner, and the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶41

Learned counsel for the owner of the offending

¶42

vehicle submits that as of the date of the accident, the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company. He submits that the said aspect was not properly considered by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the owner of the offending vehicle filed a memo along with the documents to show that the policy was in force as of the date of the accident. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12372 MFA No. 100331 of 2015

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper, and do not call for any interference by this court. Hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶46

Perused the records, and considered the

¶47

submission of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶48

The point, that would arise for my consideration is regarding the liability:

¶49

There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident, and the death of the deceased Mallikarjun in a road traffic accident. To prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, the petitioners have produced the charge marked as Ex.P6, which discloses that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.

¶50

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12372 MFA No. 100331 of 2015

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

Learned counsel for the owner of the offending

¶53

vehicle submits that the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company as of the date of the accident, and filed a memo along with insurance policy. I have perused the insurance policy. The policy was valid from 03.12.2010 to midnight on 02.12.2011, which discloses that period of insurance is in effect from 03.12.2010 to 02.12.2011. Admittedly, the accident occurred on 11.12.2011, and as of the date of the accident, the offending vehicle was not insured with any of the Insurance Company. The Tribunal has rightly recorded its finding that the offending vehicle was not insured with any Insurance Company, and has rightly fastened the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle. I do not find any error in the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

¶54