Bagavat S/O. Yallappa Mallappanavar Vs Ramesh S/O. Yallappa Asundi

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:526 MFA No. 20946 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.20946 OF 2012 (MV-I)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI BAGAVAT S/O. YALLAPPA MALLAPPANAVAR, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC : BUSINESS, R/O.2^ND CROSS, RAJ NAGAR, VIDYA NAGAR, HUBLI, DIST : DHARWAD, PRESENT AT-GUDI KOTABAGI, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶7

…APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI HANAMANT R. LATUR, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

SRI RAMESH S/O. YALLAPPA ASUNDI, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GUDIKOTABAGI, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶11

Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH

¶12

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIENCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., 186/7,RAGHAVENDRA PLAZA, 1^ST CROSS, WILSON GARDEN, HOSUR, MAIN ROAD, BANGALURU.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI CHANDRAGOUD S.SANGANNAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI M.Y. KATAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶16

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30-07-2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.2284/2009 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, BAILHONGAL AND ETC.,

¶17

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC-D:526 MFA No. 20946 of 2012

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶21

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)

¶22

The appeal is filed by the owner of the offending vehicle challenging the judgment and award dated 30.07.2011 passed in MVC No.2284/2009 by Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Bailahongal questioning the liability fastened on him to pay compensation to the claimant.

¶23

It is the case of the claimant that on 21.04.2009 at about 5.30 p.m., the claimant was travelling in the goods vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-25/C1201 along with goods of chilly crop on Dharwad-Belgaum road, NH-4 near Huvinahalli village, Bailhongal Taluk that does the said vehicle drove the same with high speed and caused accident. Therefore, the claimant has sustained injuries.

¶24

For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC-D:526 MFA No. 20946 of 2012

¶27

Heard the arguments from both sides and

¶28

perused the material placed on records.

¶29

The Tribunal while awarding compensation, has fastened liability on the appellant-owner on the reason that it is proved that the claimant has traveled in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger.

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellant-owner submitted that claimant has not traveled in the vehicle as a gratuitous passenger but has traveled along with six bags of chilly crop in order to take them to the Belgaum market to sell. Therefore, the claimant being the owner

¶31

and authorized representative of the goods has traveled. Hence, the risk is covered under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, but Tribunal has wrongly exonerated the insurance company. Therefore, prays for modification of the liability fastened on the appellant/owner to pay the compensation.

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC-D:526 MFA No. 20946 of 2012

¶34

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company justified the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and argued that the complaint is lodged after 8 days of the accident. Hence, in the complaint manipulation was done by stating that the claimant was traveled along with goods of chilly crop. Therefore, argued if there had been a prompt lodging of complaint, then the contents in the complaint would have been believed. However, the belated complaint probabalizes the fact that the appellant/owner to avoid his liability, with malafide intention might have got the complaint lodged by stating that the claimant traveled along with goods of chilly crop. Therefore, argued that this was rightly considered by the Tribunal and fastened liability on the appellant/owner to pay compensation, which requires no interference by this Court. Therefore, prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶35

In the present case, the accident occurred on 21.04.2009 and the complaint was lodged on 29.04.2009,

¶36

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:526 MFA No. 20946 of 2012

¶37

resulting in 8 days delay in lodging the complaint. Quite naturally, the consequential effects of conducting the spot mahazar, seizure of vehicle, filing of charge sheet are subsequent to lodging of complaint. The claimant, except for the oral evidence that he has traveled along with goods of chilly crop, has not provided any other evidence to support his claim of traveling with chilly goods. The appellant has also not contested the petition, although appeared before the Tribunal.

¶38

Admittedly, the history is mentioned in the hospital records states that the claimant was admitted with a history of self fall from the goods vehicle. In the case sheet, it is disputably mentioned that if it was a self fall case from goods vehicle, then had there been a prompt lodging of complaint from the date of accident, the contents of the complaint would have been reliable. However, the belated complaint after 8 days from the date of accident and the contents so far as travelling along with goods of chilly crops creates suspiciousness.

¶39

6 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC-D:526 MFA No. 20946 of 2012

¶41

Considering the aspect that if this detail were not in the complaint, the appellant/owner would have been burdened with liability therefore, there might have been chances of manipulation in the complaint regarding the claimant was travelling with goods of chilly crop. Apart from this, the claimant’s self statement that he traveled in the goods along with goods of chilly crop lacks independent evidence. The claimant has also not examined any co-passengers, who have traveled in the goods vehicle and the appellant/owner has not examined any witnesses or produced any evidence to prove that the claimant traveled along with any goods. Therefore, it is proved that the claimant has traveled as a gratuitous passenger. The insurance company is rightly exonerated and the Tribunal has correctly appreciated the evidence. Thus, the Tribunal is justified by putting burden on the appellant/owner to pay the compensation. Consequently, the appeal lacks merit based on the grounds raised. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

¶42