SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 56265

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

MFA No.201586/2014 (MV)

Between:

IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Represented by its Branch Manager,

Asian Arcade Opposite Syndicate Bank,

Near Anand Hotel, S.B.Temple Road,

Gulbarga

(Now represented by

Authorised Signatory)

... Appellant

(By Smt. Preeti Patil Melkundi, Advocate)

And:

1.

Rachamma W/o Late Rajkumar,

Aged about 41 years, Occ: Household,

R/o Bhatambra now at Ladha

Taluka Bhalki, Dist. Bidar-585 401.

2.

Sadana D/o Late Rajkumar,

Aged 23 years, Occ: Student,

R/o Bhatambra now at Ladha

Taluka Bhalki, Dist. Bidar-585 401.

3.

Sangmesh S/o Late Rajkumar,

Aged 20 years was minor at the time of

2

filing claim petition Now Major,

R/o Bhatambra now at Ladha

Taluka Bhalki, Dist. Bidar-585 401.

4.

Uday Kumar S/o Late Rajkumar,

Aged 19 years was minor at the time of

filing claim petition Now Major,

R/o Bhatambra now at Ladha

Taluka Bhalki, Dist. Bidar-585 401.

5.

Prem Sagar S/o Late Rajkumar,

Aged 17 years, Minor, under the guardianship of

his mother Rachamma W/o Late Rajkumar,

Aged about 41 years, Occ: Household,

R/o Bhatambra now at Ladha

Taluka Bhalki, Dist. Bidar-585 401.

6.

Rajkumar S/o Ramshetty Jeevanth,

Aged about 39 years, Occ: Business

(Ambika Chat Bhandar) and owner of

vehicle bearing Regn.No.KA 32 W 3774,

R/o Jayanagar, Gulbarga-585 105.

... Respondents

(Notice to R1 to R4 & 6 are served;

R5 is minor represented by R1)

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section

173(1) of the M.V. Act praying to allow the above appeal

by setting aside the impugned judgment and award dated

11.07.2014 in MVC No.484/2011 passed by the IInd

Additional MACT & Additional District & Sessions Judge at

Bidar, Sitting at Bhalki, with exemplary costs.

This appeal coming on for Final Hearing, this day,

the Court delivered the following:-

3

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company

under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act (for

short ‘the Act’) challenging the judgment and award

dated 11.07.2014 passed by the II Additional Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal and Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Bidar sitting at Bhalki (for short

hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in MVC

No.484/2011.

2.

Parties are referred to as per their ranking

before the Tribunal. Appellant is the Respondent No.2;

respondent

Nos.1

to

5

are

the

petitioners

and

respondent No.6 is the respondent No.1 before the

Tribunal.

3.

Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are

that

on

29.01.2010,

the

deceased-Rajkumar

was

proceeding as pillion rider on Bajaj motorcycle bearing

4

registration No.KA-32/W-3774 from Gulbarga to Ladha

village for attending Jatra Mahotsava and one Mahadev

was riding the said motorcycle. At about 7.00 p.m.,

when they reached on Humnabad-Bidar road, the said

Mahadev being the rider of motorcycle rode it in a high

speed and in rash and negligent manner and caused it

turtle. Due to which, the deceased-Rajkumar being

pillion rider fell down and suffered injuries. He was

immediately taken to Government Hospital, Humnabad,

thereafter to Basaveshwar Hospital, Gulbarga and to

Yashodhara Hospital, Solapur for further treatment.

Thereafter he succumbed to the injuries. The petitioners

being the legal representatives of deceased have filed

the claim petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking

compensation of Rs.58.50 lakhs for the death of

Rajkumar in the road traffic accident.

5

4.

The first respondent though appeared did

not file written statement and placed exparte by the

Tribunal.

5.

The second respondent/Insurance company

filed written statement denying the averments made in

the claim petition and also denied the age, avocation,

income of the deceased. It is contended that death of

the

deceased

was

out

of

self

negligence

and

subsequently the claimants in collusion with the police

managed to involve

one

Mahadev, rider

of

the

motorcycle to claim compensation. It is contended that

the claim petition filed by the petitioner is frivolous and

after thought and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

6.

The Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of the

parties framed the issues and recorded the finding. The

petitioners in order to prove the claim petition examined

petitioner No.1 as P.W.1 and got marked the documents

as Exs.P1 to P22. The second respondent/insurance

6

company examined its Marketing Manager as RW.1 and

got marked the documents as Ex.R.1.

7.

The Tribunal after recording the evidence

and after considering the material on record has

recorded a finding that the claimants have proved that

the deceased-Rajkumar died in the accident, which

occurred on 29.01.2010, due to the rash and negligent

driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and held

that the claimants are entitled to compensation and

awarded compensation of Rs.10,27,169/- along with

interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of

claim petition till the date of realization and further held

that the respondents are jointly and severally liable to

pay compensation and directed the respondent No.2 to

deposit the compensation amount. Respondent No.2

aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the

Tribunal has filed this appeal.

7

8.

In spite of service of notice, respondent No.1

remained absent.

9.

Heard the learned counsel for the respondent

No.2-Insurance Company.

10.

The learned counsel for the respondent No.2

submits that in the complaint, the complainant has

stated that the deceased was riding the motorcycle

whereas in the chargesheet, it is shown as the deceased

was a pillion rider. So there is contradiction in the copy

of FIR and chargesheet. She further submits that the

rider of the motorcycle was not holding a valid and

effective driving licence as on the date of accident. The

petitioners having colluded with the police officials got

filed a false chargesheet in order to claim the

compensation.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top