The Divisional the New India Assurance Vs Shoba W/O Shivaji Andolkar

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:1343 MFA No. 21127 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.21127 OF 2012 (MV)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASST. MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, TP-HUB, II FLOOR, SRINATH COMPLEX, NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBLI-580029.

¶7

…APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI G.N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

SRI SHOBA W/O. SHIVAJI ANDOLKAR, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. GUNDEWADI, TQ. ATHANI, NOW AT C/O. PARISH N.CHUBACHI, H.NO.52/3, GOMMDO CL WING-3, DEMO-3, BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶11

SRI GURUPUTRAPPA HANAMANTAPPA TORGAL, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: SERVICE, R/O. BLOCK NO.L/2, ROOM NO.88, NEW PC QUARTERS, PHQ, BELAGAVI.

¶12

Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SMT. TANGEWWA YALLAPPA ANDOLKAR, AGE: 92 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: GUNDEWADI, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI VIJAY K.NAILK, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R3 IS SERVED)

¶16

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V. ACT, PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.01.2012 PASSED IN MVC.NO.429/2007, ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL BELAGAVI, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COST IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC-D:1343 MFA No. 21127 of 2012

¶19

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

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶21

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

¶22

This appeal is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 11.1.2012 passed in MVC No.429/2007 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belgaum (for short, ‘Tribunal’), questioning the quantum of compensation, which is excessive and exorbitant.

¶23

Brief facts of the case are that on 31.08.2006 at about 5-15 p.m., the petitioner and her husband Shivaji were proceeding on motor cycle bearing No.MEH-3094 from Athani to Shirahatti and deceased was riding the motorcycle and petitioner was a pillion rider. When the motorcycle came near Purathaneshwar temple, said vehicle met with an accident and deceased sustained injuries and died on the spot. Therefore, the claimant being wife filed claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, MV Act’).

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1343 MFA No. 21127 of 2012

¶25

In this case, the Tribunal has awarded

¶26

compensation under various heads as under:

¶27

Sl. No.	Heads.	Amount in (Rs.)
1.	Loss of dependency.	3,60,000
2.	Loss of consortium.	5,000
3.	Loss of estate.	2,500
4.	Funeral obsequies & transportation of dead body.	2,000
	Total:	3,69,500

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that in terms of ground raised in the appeal memo that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the deceased himself and due to the said impact, the deceased died in the accident. Therefore, the claim petition against the Insurance Company is not maintainable and the compensation payable as per terms of contract of Insurance by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of RAMKHILADI AND ANOTHER VS. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY AND ANOTHER reported in (2020) 2 SCC 550 .

¶29

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1343 MFA No. 21127 of 2012

¶30

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-claimant justified the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and sought dismissal of the appeal.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the trial Court records.

¶32

In the present case, the deceased was proceeding on the motorcycle bearing registration No.MEH-3094 and due to rash and negligent driving, deceased caused accident and died on spot. The issue is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of RAMKHILADI (referred supra). Therefore, the claim made under Section 163-A is not maintainable. Hence, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is liable to set aside.

¶33

However, the claimant is entitled for compensation under the personal accident coverage as per terms of contract of Insurance. Therefore, with these observations that the claimant is entitled to compensation under the personal accident coverage to a sum assured therein as per policy of

¶34