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) 26318

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
DADAPEERA S/O ABDUL SALAM SAB – Appellant
Versus
MALLESH M S/O HANUMANTHAPPA – Respondent
MFA 102485 / 2014



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH R DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102485 OF 2014 (MV)

BETWEEN:

DADAPEERA S/O. ABDUL SALAM SAB, AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT CUM-AGRICULTURAL COOLIE, R/O: WARD NO.5, HUVINAHADAGALI NOW R/O: KAPPAGAL ROAD, BELLARY.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI T. HANUMAREDDY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. MALLESH M. S/O. HANUMANTHAPPA, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF TRACTOR AND TRAILER BEARING NO.KA-35/5-9766, R/O: BAGALI VILLAGE, TQ: HARAPANAHALLI, DIST: DAVANAGERE.

2. HUSSAIN SAB BAVAJI S/O. RAJA SAB BAVAJI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF TRACTOR AND TRAILER BEARING NO.KA-35/T-9766, R/O: WARD NO.5, HUVINAHADAGALI, Digitally signed by DIST: BELLARY.

MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH

3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, Location: HIGH COURT OF NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KARNATAKA BELLARY.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI R.S. ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R3;

SRI S.S. JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR R3;

R1 AND R2-SERVICE OF NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND AWARD DATED 16.06.2014, PASSED IN MVC.NO.300/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL-II, BELLARY, THE COMPENSATION OF RS.9,15,840/- EXCEPT THE COMPENSATION AWARDED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND ETC.,.

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This appeal is filed by the claimant/appellant challenging the judgment and award dated 16.06.2014 passed in MVC No.300/2013 on the file of Member, Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal-II, Bellary (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short) seeking enhancement of compensation and also modification of liability to pay compensation holding the insurance company is liable.

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

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 28.07.2011 at about 5.45 p.m., in the land of Buden Sab Hadagali, the claimant was proceeding on the mud-guard of tractor engine at the time of tilling the land along with driver of the said tractor engine. At that time, respondent No.1 being driver of the said tractor engine bearing Reg.No.KA-35/T-9766, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger human life and turtled it by losing the control over the said tractor, due to which, the claimant, who was sitting on the mud guard of the tractor engine sustained fracture to his left femur, left thigh, left leg and all over his body and took treatment in the Government Hospital, Huvinahadagali.

Therefore, filed claim petition seeking compensation.

4. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, has granted compensation of Rs.84,160/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., holding that respondent Nos.1 and 2 being driver and owner of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant.

5. Heard the arguments from both sides and perused the material placed on record.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has not held correct parameters while assessing and quantifying the compensation. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation. Further sought to fasten liability on the Insurance Company to pay compensation.

RE. LIABILITY:

7. In the present case, the Tribunal held that the claimant had sat on the mud guard of tractor engine at the time of tilling the land along with driver of the said tractor engine and the driver lost control over the vehicle due to rash and negligent driving and caused accident. Hence the claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal has fastened liability on the owner and driver of the tractor.

8. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the claimant was sitting on the mud guard of the tractor engine. This is evident from the FIR at Ex.P.1. Therefore, submitted that c

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