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

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT - BENCH AT KALBURAGI
SHIVALINGAPPA AND ANR – Appellant
Versus
BASAWARAJ AND ORS – Respondent
MFA 200910/2021



1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS

AND

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.200910/2021 (MV)

BETWEEN:

1.

SHIVALINGAPPA

S/O VITHAL,

AGE.57 YEARS,

OCC.GOVERNMENT

SERVANT,

(EDUCATION DEPARTMENT)

2.

SHANTABAI W/O SHIVALINGAPPA

AGE.46 YEARS,

OCC.GOVERNMENT SERVANT,

(EDUCATION DEPARTMENT)

BOTH ARE R/O H.NO.9-953/12G,

JANATA LAYOUT, SHARAN NAGAR,

NEAR SIDDAROODH MATH,

S.B.TEMPLE ROAD,

BRAHMPUR, KALABURAGI.

...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. KRUPA SAGAR PATIL, ADVOCATE)

2

AND:

1.

BASAWARAJ

S/O SHARANAYYA HIREMATH,

AGE.47 YEARS,

OCC.BUSINESS AND OWNER

OF BUS BEARING NO.KA.34/A.2852,

R/O CTS NO.1250/A,

WARD NO.23, YATAGERI

LANE, RABAKAVI,

TQ.JAMAKHANDI,

DIST.BAGALKOT-587314.

2.

NURULLA BAIG S/O AJAMAT BAIG

AGE.44 YEARS,

OCC.OWNER OF TRAILER

LORRY BEARING NO.MH-46/H-2914,

R/O H.NO.1-363,

WARD NO.4, NISHA CAMP,

T.B.DAM, HOSPET,

DIST.BALLARY-583201.

3.

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.

THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL

MANAGER, DR.JAWALI

COMPLEX, SUPER MARKET,

KALABURAGI-585102.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R3;

NOTICE TO R1 & R2 D/W V/O DTD 22.09.2021)

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING

TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT

AND AWARD DATED

18.11.2019 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL

JUDGE AND MACT, KALABURAGI IN FILE BEARING MVC

3

NO.906/2017 BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION, IN

THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The appellants/claimants have filed the petition

under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming

compensation on account of death of their daughter-

Preeti in a road traffic accident on 17.12.2016.

2.

The factual matrix leading to the case are

that on 17.12.2016 at 10:00 p.m. the claimants, their

sons, daughter-deceased-Preeti boarded a private bus

bearing Reg.No.KA-34/A-2852 in order to go to Rajapur

Village in Kolapur district, Maharashtra, to attend the

marriage of daughter of Shivalingappa by name Roopa

Rani. When the said bus reached near Nandikur village

bus stand, situated on Kalaburagi-Jewargi NH-218,

within the limits of Farhatabad Police Station, the driver

4

of the said bus drove the bus in high speed rash and

negligently endangering human life and lost control over

the same and hit the rear side of the lorry bearing

Reg.No.MH-46/H-2914. Due to the said impact, the

front portion of the bus was completely damaged and

inmates of the bus sustained grievous injuries. The

deceased-Preeti had sustained fatal injuries on her vital

parts of the body and immediately she was shifted to

Ganga Hospital, Kalaburagi, but due to the accidental

injuries, she succumbed on 18.12.2016 at 1:00 a.m.

The claimants have spent more than one lakh towards

hospital and medical expenses.

3.

It is asserted that the deceased was aged

about 19 years and was studying in BA-III semester in

reputed institution and she was a brilliant student and

had scored high percentage of marks in her studies and

she was also participated in extra curricular activities

and being an extraordinary athlete, the claimants have

5

lost their young brilliant daughter and her future

income as well as support to the family, which caused

great loss to the claimants. It is asserted that the

accident was due to actionable negligence on the part of

the driver. Respondent No.1 being the owner and

respondent No.3 being the insurer are jointly and

severally liable to pay the compensation. As such, the

claimants have claimed compensation of Rs.51.00 lakhs

before the Tribunal.

4.

Respondent

No.1-owner

and

respondent

No.3-insurer have appeared through their respective

counsels before the Tribunal and filed their objections

disputing the claim on various grounds.

5.

Respondent No.1 has specifically asserted

that

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top