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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 22778

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
SHANKRAPPA HANAMANTHAPPA DIDAGUR – Respondent
MFA 22880 / 2012



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.22880 OF 2012 (MV-D)

BETWEEN:

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, 4TH FLOOR, V.A. KALBURGI MANSION, OPPOSITE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBBALLI, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.

… APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAVINDRA R. MANE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SHANKRAPPA HANAMANTHAPPA DIDAGUR, AGE ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, 2. DYAMAVVA W/O SHANKRAPPA DIDAGUR, AGE ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 3. ARUN S/O SHANKRAPPA DIDAGUR, AGE ABOUT 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER Digitally signed by AND NATURAL GUARDIAN RESPONDENT NO.1.

MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Date: 2025.08.14 12:07:12 +0530 ALL ARE R/O: HOSALLI, TQ: AND DIST: HAVERI.

4. SHIVASHANKAR S/O VENKATA BOVI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF TRACTOR AND TRAILER, R/O: HALEMALALKOPPA, POST: SANTHEKADUR, (OWNER OF TRACTOR NO. KA-14/TA-1921 AND TRAILER NO. KA-17/T-3929).

… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVASAI M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;

R3 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY R1)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V. ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 07-03-2012, PASSED IN MVC NO.61/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, HAVERI.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT S DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 07.03.2012 passed in MVC No.61/2011 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Haveri1 on the ground that the accident is arising out of use of tractor and trailer.

2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.

3. The facts were peculiar; therefore, it is profitable to state the facts of how the accident is occurred. On 09.10.2010, the deceased was working as laborer in L and T Company as the said L and T Company had received contract work from MESCOM for fixing an electrical board on (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short)

Halemalalikoppa road near Mangalamma’s house at Shimoga. At that time, when the claimant was working for erection of electric pole, a Tractor and Trailer bearing Reg.No.KA-14/TA-1921 and KA-17/T-3929 came from Ram Nagar side towards Halemalalikoppa with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner driven by its driver without observing minimum caution required. At that time, behind the Trailer, its hook picked up the electric wire that was about to fix to the pole but dragged the said wire and due to this, the electric pole was broke down and fell down on the head of the deceased, who was working under the said pole. Due to this, the deceased sustained grievous injuries to the head and all over the body and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Therefore, these are the peculiar facts involved in the case involved in the case causing the death of the deceased in this accident.

4. By averring so, the claimants have filed claim petition before the Tribunal and the Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record has held that the death of the deceased arose out of use of Tractor and Trailer, thus determined the compensation under various heads as follows:

Sl. No. Heads Amount
1. Towards loss of dependency. Rs.4,80,060/-
2. Towards loss of estate. Rs.10,000/-
3. Towards loss of love and affection. Rs.10,000/-
4. Towards funeral and transportation. Rs.15,000/-
Total: Rs.5,15,000/-

5. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company, relying on the evidence, submitted that the death of the deceased was not caused by a motor vehicle accident. He further contended that the tractor and trailer bearing registration Nos.KA-14/TA-1921 and KA-17/T-3929, did not strike the deceased, but he died under the circumstances that, wi

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