Basavva W/O. Fakkirappa Bisaralli Vs Basavaraj S/O. Irshvarappa More

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12828 MFA No. 20370 of 2012

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 20370 OF 2012 (MV-D)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. BASAVVA W/O. FAKKIRAPPA BISARALLI AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. HULLAMBI, TQ: KALGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶8

SRI. IRABASAPPA S/O. FAKKIRAPPA BISARALLI, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HULLAMBI, TQ: KALGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶9

MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR

¶10

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SRI. SHIVANAND S/O. FAKKIRAPPA BISARALLI, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HULLAMBI, TQ: KALGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶12

SRI. VEERABHADRAPPA S/O. FAKKIRAPPA BISARALLI, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HULLAMBI, TQ: KALGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶13

SRI. PARVATI W/O. VEERABHADRAPPA KICHADI, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HULLAMBI, TQ: KALGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶14

KUM. NAGARATNAVVA D/O. FAKKIRAPPA BISARALLI, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12828 MFA No. 20370 of 2012

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

R/O. HULLAMBI, TQ: KALGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶19

KUM. GURUSHANTA D/O. FAKKIRAPPA BISARALLI AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HULLAMBI, TQ: KALGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶20

SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S/O. FAKKIRAPPA BISARALLI, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HULLAMBI, TQ: KALGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶21

&APPELLANTS

¶22

(BY SRI. SHRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE)

¶23

AND:

¶24

BASAVARAJ S/O. ISHVARAPPA MORE, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: LORRY DRIVER, R/O. KADANAKOPPA, AT POST: KALGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶25

SRI. MARUTI S/O. RAJAPPA MORE, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF GOODS TRUCK, R/O. UGGINIKERI, TQ: KALGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶26

THE UNITED INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, <RADHA GOVIND COMPLEX=, 1^ST FLOOR, KAIKINI ROAD, KARWAR, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.

¶27

PRAKASH S/O. SHIDDAPPA NERALAGI, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O. SHUKRAWAR PETH, SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶28

AKVARULLAKHAN J. PATHAN, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF GOODS

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12828 MFA No. 20370 of 2012

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

TRUCK BEARING NO.KA-27/6029, R/O. SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶33

THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH H.C.C. SALES BUILDING, P.B. ROAD, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶34

&RESPONDENTS

¶35

(BY SRI.S.S. KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. C.M HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.S. JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR R6; NOTICE TO R1, R2, R4 AND R5 ARE DISPENSED WITH)

¶36

THIS MFA FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE/MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.10.2011 IN MVC NO. 187/2005 PASSED BY THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT DHARWAD SITTING AT KALAGHATGI IN SO FAR AS NOT AWARDING COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶40

This appeal is filed by the petitioners being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Dharwad, Sitting at Kalghatgi (8Tribunal9 for short) for loss of goods and theft vide judgment and award dated 29.10.2011 in MVC No.187/2005.

¶41

4 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12828 MFA No. 20370 of 2012

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

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

¶45

2.1. On 27.03.2005, the deceased Fakirappa Bisaralli,

¶46

hired a goods truck bearing Reg.No.KA-30/1942 for transportation. He was transporting first roofing tiles with glass ridges, glass tiles and bricks from Anantawadi to Hullambi by paying a sum of Rs.16,216/-, Rs.2,600/- and additional amount of Rs.1,000/- towards miscellaneous expenses, the deceased was also carrying additional sum of Rs.10,000/- to meet out his personal expenses. When the vehicle was near Devikoppa Inspection Bungalow, just 4 kilometers away from Kalghatgti Police Station, the said truck dashed another truck coming from the opposite direction. Due to the said accident, the deceased sustained

¶47

the grievous injuries and succumbed to the said injuries. It is also contended that, there is a loss of goods in transit and theft of cash of Rs.10,000/-. Hence, the petitioners being the legal representatives of the deceased, filed a claim petition in MVC No.186/2005 and they have also filed a

¶48

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12828 MFA No. 20370 of 2012

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

claim petition for loss of goods and theft in

¶51

MVC No.187/2005.

¶52

Respondent No.3-the Insurance Company filed a statement of objections contending that, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the goods truck bearing Reg.No.KA-27/6029 and the deceased was the unauthorized passenger traveling in the truck bearing Reg.No.KA-30/1942. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against it.

¶53

Respondent No.5-the owner of the goods truck bearing Reg.No.KA-27/6029 filed a statement of objections contending that, as of the date of accident, the driver of the goods truck bearing Reg.No.KA-27/6029 was possessing the valid and effective driving license and the policy was in force. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against him.

¶54

Respondent No.6-the Insurance Company filed a statement of objections contending that, the driver of the

¶55

6 -

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12828 MFA No. 20370 of 2012

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

goods truck bearing Reg.No.KA-27/6029 did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of accident. It is further contended that, the charge sheet is filed only against the driver of the goods truck bearing Reg.No.KA30/1942. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the claim petition against it.

¶59

The Tribunal clubbed both the claim petitions, framed the separate issues and recorded the common evidence.

¶60

The petitioners, to substantiate their case, petitioner No.4 was examined as PW-1 and two witnesses were examined as PWs-2 and 3 and marked 6 documents as Exs.P1 to P6. In rebuttal, the Administrative Officer of the Insurance Company was examined as RW1 and marked 3 documents as Exs.R1 to R3.

¶61

The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petitions in part and awarded a compensation of Rs.20,000/- at 6% interest

¶62

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12828 MFA No. 20370 of 2012

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

p.a. from the date of evidence till its realization in MVC No.187/2005.

¶65

The petitioners, aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MVC

¶66

No.187/2005, filed this appeal.

¶67

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and

¶68

the learned counsel for the Insurance Companies.

¶69

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the petitioner has produced Ex.P5 to show that he has purchased the goods worth Rs.16,216/- and also theft of Rs.10,000/-. The Tribunal awarded global compensation of Rs.20,000/-, which is on the lower side. Hence, on this ground, he prays to allow the appeal filed by the petitioners.

¶70

Per contra , learned counsel for the Insurance Companies supported the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and pray for dismissal of the appeal.

¶71

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12828 MFA No. 20370 of 2012

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The points that arise for consideration are quantum of

¶74

compensation and the liability.

¶75

Reg. Quantum of compensation:

¶76

There is no dispute about the occurrence of the accident and death of the deceased. The petitioners, to prove that the deceased had purchased the goods, has produced a cash bill marked as Ex.P5, which discloses that, transportation of the goods worth Rs.16,216/-. There was a loss of goods as per Ex.P5 and the Tribunal awarded a global compensation of Rs.20,000/-, which is just and proper. The petitioners, to substantiate their case that the deceased lost cash of Rs.10,000/-, have not produced any proof to show that there was a theft of Rs.10,000/-. The Tribunal was justified in passing an impugned judgment and award. I do not find any error in the impugned judgment and award.

¶77

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12828 MFA No. 20370 of 2012

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

Reg. Liability:

¶80

Respondent No.6 3 National Insurance Company Limited, aggrieved by the common judgment passed in MVCs No.186/2005 and 187/2005, preferred appeals in MFAs No.20814/2012 and 20813/2012 before this Court. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 07.08.2023, allowed the appeals in part and set aside the common judgment passed by the Tribunal in MVCs No.186/2005 and 187/2005 and the owner and the insurer of the truck bearing Reg.No.KA-30/1942 are jointly and severally held liable to pay the entire compensation to the claimants. In view of the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in the aforesaid appeals, the entire liability is fastened on respondent No.3 3 United India Insurance Company Limited.

¶81

In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following:

¶82

10 -

¶83

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12828 MFA No. 20370 of 2012

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

ORDER

¶86

i. The appeal is allowed-in-part ;

¶87

ii. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.187/2005 is hereby modified;

¶88

iii. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company is directed to pay the entire compensation amount with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization;

¶89

iv. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶90

Sd/(ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE

¶91

PA CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Basavva W/O. Fakkirappa Bisaralli v. Basavaraj S/O. Irshvarappa More

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basavva W/O. Fakkirappa Bisaralli v. Basavaraj S/O. Irshvarappa More

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Divisional Manager Vs Baba S/O Tola Patel and Ors.

Smt. Shobha and Anr. Vs Sri. Rajendra and Ors.

The Manager/ Legal Officer Vs Sharanamma and Anr.

Basavaraj @ Basavantappa Hadapad, Vs B. Suresh S/O Ramudu @ Ramamurthy

Shri. Shankreppa S/O Mahadevappap Chandaragi Vs Shri. Lalemashak Razak S/O Abdul Razak

Shri.Malhari Babu Punajiche Vs the M.S.R.T.C.Mumbai