Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.104409 OF 2018 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. RADHA W/O. VIKRAM KAMBLE AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: H.NO.885, AMBEDKAR GALLI, KAKATI, TALUKA and DIST:BELAGAVI-590010.
2. KUMARI ARPITA D/O. VIKRAM KAMBLE AGE: 6 YEARS, R/O: H.NO.885, AMBEDKAR GALLI, KAKATI, TALUKA and DIST: BELAGAVI-590010.
3. KUMARI SONI D/O. VIKRAM KAMBLE AGE: 4 YEARS, R/O: H.NO.885, AMBEDKAR GALLI, SAMREEN KAKATI, TALUKA and AYUB DIST:BELAGAVI-590010.
DESHNUR Digitally signed by (PETITIONERS NO.2 AND 3 BEING MINORS SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER Date: 2024.02.22
16:49:25 +0530 SMT. RADHA W/O. VIKRAM KAMBLE PETITIONER NO.1)
4. SHRI. DAYANAND S/O. KRISHNAPPA KAMBLE AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC:COOLIE, R/O: H.NO.885, AMBEDKAR GALLI, KAKATI, TALUKA &
DIST:BELAGAVI-590010.
5. SMT. PRAMILA W/O. DAYANAND KAMBLE AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: H.NO.885, AMBEDKAR GALLI, KAKATI, TALUKA and DIST: BELAGAVI-590010.
…APPELLANTS (BY SMT. GEETHA K.M. @ PAWAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI. ANANT S/O. KRISHNA MURGUNDE @ WAGHMODE AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS R/O: H.NO.499/21, BEGHAR VASAHAT CHINCHWAD, TALUKA: KARVEER, DIST: KOLHAPUR.
(OWNER OF TATA TRUCK BEARING REGN.
NO.MH-09/BC-41140)
2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI-590001.
(INSURER OF TATA TRUCK BEARING REGN.
NO.MH-09/BC-4114)
POLICY NO.15120031150100000833 VALID FROM 13.05.2015 TO 12.05.2015)
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.Y. KATAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.08.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.2968/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A., COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Smt.Geetha K.M. @ Pawar and Sri.M.Y.Katagi, learned counsel for the parties.
2. Notice to owner of the vehicle held sufficient and he remained absent.
3. Brief facts of the case which are utmost necessary for disposal of the appeal are as under:
3.1. Dependants of deceased Sri.Vikram Dayanand Kamble filed a claim petition under Section 163-A MV Act for the accidental death of Vikram D.Kamble on 04.10.2015 at about 9.50 p.m. when he was proceeding on motorcycle bearing No.KA-22/EK-8256 met with road traffic accident involving the truck bearing No.MH-09/BC-4114 .
3.2 Claim petition on contest came to be allowed in sum of Rs.4,77,834-00 as per II schedule of the M.V.Act.
3.3. Driver of the offending truck did not posses valid driving license and therefore, liability fastened on the owner of the truck.
4. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation and liability on the owner of the truck, claimants are in appeal.
5. Reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, Smt.Geetha K.M. vehemently contended that the tribunal erred in law in not allowing the proper compensation and also fastening the liability on the owner of the truck and sought for allowing the appeal.
6. Per contra, Sri.M.Y.Katagi, counsel for respondent insurance company supported the impugned judgment.
7. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, this court has perused the material on record meticulously.
8. On such perusal of the material on record, loss of life of Sri.Vikram Dayanand Kamble in a road traffic accident involving motorcycle bearing No.KA-22/EK-8256 and truck bearing No.MH-09/BC-4114 is established by placing sufficient evidence on record.
9. Insofar as quantum of compensation is concerned, sum of Rs.4,77,834-00 is awarded as per II schedule of he MV Act as the claim is under Section 163-A of the MV Act which is just and proper and therefore, there is no scope for enhancement of compensation.
10. Insofar as liability of the insurance company is concerned, driver of the truck did not posses the driving license is found from the material evidence on record.
11. Therefore, compensation is to be paid by the owner of the truck bearing No.MH-09/BC-4114 and insurance company cannot be directed to pay the compensation.
12. Accordingly, there is no scope for interference with the well reasoned order of the tribunal.
13. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i) Appeal is merit less and is hereby dismissed.
ii) No order as to costs.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
