Back
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
AND
THE HON9BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.814/2019 (MV-D)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.7202/2018 (MV-D)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.10390/2018 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.10533/2018 (MV-D)
IN MFA NO.814/2019 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
KUMARI S. MANASA BHAKTHA,
AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS,
D/O S. MANOHAR BHAKTHA AND
LATE SWATHI,
R/AT 8SAMRUDDI9,
SOMESHWARA POST,
NADPAL VILLAGE,
KARKALA TALUK,
REP. BY HER COURT GUARDIAN,
SRI PRAJESH BHAKTHA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
2
S/O LATE MANJUNATHA BHAKTHA,
SOMESHWARA POST,
NADPAL VILLAGE,
KARKALA TALUK.
...APPELLANT
(BY MS. NAZEEFA M MULLA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE MANAGING PARTNER,
M/S. UDAY STEELS INDUSTRIAL AREA,
MANIPAL, SHIVALLI VILLAGE,
MANIPAL POST,
UDUPI TALUK.
2.
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.,
UDUPI DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
SRI RAM ARCADE,
UDUPI.
&RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MANJULA N TEJASWI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 VIDE
ORDER DATED 05.03.2021. NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED
WITH)
****
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.11.2017 PASSED IN
MVC NO.736/16 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE
AND
ADDITIONAL
MACT.
KARKALA,
PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
3
IN MFA NO.7202/2018 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1.
SUMAN SANTHOSH BHAT,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
W/O SANTHOSH BHAT,
R/AT NO.52, ANANTH NAGAR,
MANIPAL, SHIVALLI VILLAGE,
UDUPI TALUK.
2.
PRATHIBHA P. RAO,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
W/O PANDURANGA RAO K.,
R/AT NO.222, SRI RAM PURA EXTENSION,
OPP: SRILAXMI VENKATGARAMANA TEMPLE,
SAGAR TALUK,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT 3 577 401.
3.
SHALINI JAGADEESHA SHENOY,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
W/O K.JAGADEESHA SHENOY,
R/AT NO.2-11, SANTHE MARKETU,
KOTA POST, GILIYAR,
KOTA, UDUPI TALUK 3 576 221.
4.
PRAJESH BHAKTHA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
S/O LATE MANJUNATGHA BHAKTHA,
SOMESHWARA POST,
NADPAL VILLAGE,
KARKALA TALUK.
5.
KUMARI S. MANASA BHAKTHA,
AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS,
D/O S. MANOHAR BHAKTHA AND
LATE SWATHI,
REP. BY HER COURT GUARDIAN,
PRAJESH BHAKTHA,
4
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
S/O LATE MANJUNATHA BHAKTHA,
R/AT 8SAMRUDDI9,
SOMESHWARA POST,
NADPAL VILLAGE,
KARKALA TALUK.
...APPELLANTS
(BY MS. NAZEEFA M MULLA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE MANAGING PARTNER,
M/S. UDAY STEELS INDUSTRIAL AREA,
MANIPAL, SHIVALLI VILLAGE,
MANIPAL POST,
UDUPI TALUK.
2.
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.,
UDUPI DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
SRI RAM ARCADE,
UDUPI.
&RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MANJULA N TEJASWI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 VIDE
ORDER DATED 27.05.2022. NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED
WITH)
***
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.11.2017 PASSED IN
MVC NO.41/17 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND MACT. KARKALA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION
FOR
COMPENSATION
AND
SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
5
IN MFA NO.10390/2018 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
KUMARI S. MANASA BHAKTHA,
AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS,
D/O S. MANOHAR BHAKTHA AND
LATE SWATHI,
R/AT 8SAMRUDDI9,
SOMESHWARA POST,
NADPAL VILLAGE,
KARKALA TALUK,
REP. BY HER COURT GUARDIAN,
SRI PRAJESH BHAKTHA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
S/O LATE MANJUNATHA BHAKTHA,
SOMESHWARA POST,
NADPAL VILLAGE,
KARKALA TALUK 3 575 001.
...APPELLANT
(BY MS. NAZEEFA M MULLA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE MANAGING PARTNER,
M/S. UDAY STEELS INDUSTRIAL AREA,
MANIPAL, SHIVALLI VILLAGE,
MANIPAL POST,
UDUPI TALUK 3 576 201.
2.
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.,
UDUPI DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
SRI RAM ARCADE,
UDUPI 3 576 201.
&RESPONDENTS
6
(BY SMT. MANJULA N TEJASWI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 VIDE
ORDER DATED 27.05.2025. NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED
WITH)
****
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.11.2017 PASSED IN
MVC NO.736/16 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND MACT. KARKALA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO.10533/2018 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
KUMARI S. MANASA BHAKTHA,
AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS,
D/O S. MANOHAR BHAKTHA AND
LATE SWATHI,
R/AT 8SAMRUDDI9,
SOMESHWARA POST,
NADPAL VILLAGE,
KARKALA TALUK,
REP. BY HER COURT GUARDIAN,
SRI PRAJESH BHAKTHA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
S/O LATE MANJUNATHA BHAKTHA,
SOMESHWARA POST,
NADPAL VILLAGE,
KARKALA TALUK 3 574 104.
...APPELLANT
(BY MS. NAZEEFA M MULLA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H., ADVOCATE)
7
AND:
1.
THE MANAGING PARTNER,
M/S. UDAY STEELS INDUSTRIAL AREA,
MANIPAL, SHIVALLI VILLAGE,
MANIPAL POST,
UDUPI TALUK 3 576 101.
2.
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.,
UDUPI DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
SRI RAM ARCADE,
UDUPI 3 576 101.
&RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MANJULA N TEJASWI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 VIDE
ORDER DATED 27.05.2025. NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED
WITH)
****
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.11.2017 PASSED IN
MVC NO.735/16 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND MACT. KARKALA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS COMING ON
FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, B.VEERAPPA J., DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
8
All these appeals are arising out of the same
accident occurred on 07.12.2014. Though the learned
Judge of the Tribunal passed the separate orders, with
the consent of the learned counsel for the parties all
these appeals are taken up together for final disposal.
These appeals are filed by the claimant/s
seeking enhancement of compensation against the
impugned judgment and award dated 29.11.2017
arising out of MFA No.814/2019 arising out of MVC
No.736/2016, MFA No.7202/2018 arising out of MVC
No.41/2017, MFA No.10390/2018 arising out of MVC
No.734/2016 and MFA No.10533/2018 arising out of
MVC No.735/2016 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge
and AMACT, Karkala awarding total compensation of
Rs.4,05,000/- with interest @ 8% p.a. in the case of
Kumari Sanjana @ Sowmya, Rs.3,01,000/- with
interest @ 8% p.a. in the case of Manorama Bhaktha,
9
Rs. 12,34,860/- with interest @ 8% p.a. in the case of
Swathi
Bhaktha
mother
of
the
claimant
and
Rs.24,10,000/- with interest @ 8% p.a. in the case of
Manohar Baktha.
It is contended that the deceased Manohar
Bhaktha was proceeding on Hundai I-10 car bearing
registration No.KA-20-N-7847 on 07.12.2014 along
with his wife Swathi Bhakta, daughter Sanjana @
Sowmya, mother Manorama Bhakta and the claimant-
Manasa and when they reached near Padigaru
Kaimkamba of Perdoor Village, Udupi Taluk, at that
time, a TATA MGV lorry bearing registration No.KA-
20-C-9236 came from Hebri towards Udupi in a rash
and negligent manner with high speed dashed against
the car and the lorry dragged the car to the extent of
100 meters from the spot. As a result, the father of
the claimant i.e., Manohar Bhakta sustained injuries
and died on his way to the Hospital and he was
10
running a Tourist Hotel at Someshwara Town in the
name and style of Hotel Mayura and was earning
Rs.3,000/- per day and spent Rs.60,000/- towards
obsequies ceremonies of the deceased.
It is also contended that due to the
accident, claimant-Manasa lost her father 3 Manohar
Bhakta, mother - Swathi Bhaktha, sister - Kum.
Sanjana @ Sowmya and grand mother - Smt.
Manorama Bhaktha and also contended that the
claimant9s mother Swathi Bhaktha was helper in the
hotel run by her husband Manohar Bhaktha. Thereby
separate claim petitions were filed in respect of four
deaths in the family.
In response to the notice issued by the
Tribunal, the owner of the lorry 3 respondent No.1 in
all the cases remained absent and was placed exparte.
11
6.
Respondent No.2-insurance company in all
cases appeared and filed written statement denying
the averments made in the claim petitions and
admitted the fact that the offending vehicle was
insured with the company at the relevant point of time
and further contended the driver of the offending
vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving
licence at the time of the alleged incident and sought
to dismiss the claim petition.
7.
Claimant/s in order to substantiate the
case, examined guardian of claimant as PW.1 in all the
cases and got marked several documents. On the
other hand, respondent No.2 did not adduce any
evidence and only got marked document at Ex.R.1 3
Insurance Policy.
8.
The Tribunal, on the basis of the pleadings,
evidence, the oral and documentary evidence on
12
record held that the accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the TATA MGV lorry
bearing registration No.KA-20-C-9236 and as a result,
caused death of Manohar Bhaktha, Swati Bhaktha,
Sanjana @ Sowmya and Manorama Bhaktha and
further
held
the
claimant/s
are
entitled
for
compensation and fastened the liability upon the
insurance company. Accordingly, the Tribunal by
separate judgment and award dated 29.11.2017
awarded
the
compensation
of
Rs.4,05,000/-,
Rs.3,01,000/-, Rs. 12,34,860/- and Rs.24,10,000/- in
MVC
Nos.736/2016,
41/2017,
734/2016
and
735/2016 respectively with interest @ 8% p.a. from
the date of petition till the date of realization.
9.
Being unsatisfied with the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tr
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
