MFA 172/2014

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

BEFORE:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

M.F.A.NO.172/2014 (MV - D)

BETWEEN:

THE MANAGER,

SHRI RAM GIC LTD.,

NO.10003-EPIP, RICHO, INDUSTRIAL AREA,

SEETHAPURA, JAIPUR,

RAJASTHAN-302022.

NOW REP BY THE LEGAL MANAGER,

SRHIRAM GENERAL INS. CO. LTD.,

3^RD FLOOR, S AND S CORNER BUILDING,

OPP. BOWRING AND LADY

CURZON HOSPITAL, BANGALORE – 01.

… APPELLANT

(BY SRI. B.PRADEEP, ADV.)

AND:

1.

RAZIA @ ASHA,

S/O LATE RAJU, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,

2.

MASTER RATEESHA,

S/O LATE RAJU,

NOW AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS,

3.

RASHMITHA, S/O LATE RAJU,

NOW AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS,

4.

RAKESH, S/O LATE RAJU,

AGED ABOUT 3 YEARS,

RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4 ARE

SINCE MINOR REP BY THEIR

MFA 172/2014

2

NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER AS

RESPONDENT NO.1,

ALL R/AT ALDUR HOSAHALLY, ALDUR HOBLI,

CHIKKAMANGALUR TALUK – 577 101.

5.

SMT. GEETHA,

W/O KENCHAPPA @ KENCHAPPA SIDDAPPA HULLY,

NOW AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

R/O MOODURU, HANAGAL TALUK,

HAVERI DISTRICT – 581 104.

6.

M.K.NATESHA,

S/O KRISHANEGOWDA,

NOW AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

R/O MARADI VILLAGE,

ALDUR HOBLI, CHIKMAGALUR – 577 101.

7.

M.RAMESHA, S/O MANJUNATHA,

NOW AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,

NEAR MAHANTI MATA, MEGALAPETE,

MANGALAPETE VILLAGE,

MUDIGERE TALUK,

CHIKMAGALUR – 577 101.

… RESPONDENTS

(VIDE ORDER DATED 03.10.2016, NOTICE TO R-1 IS

HELD SUFFICIENT,

R-2 TO R-4 ARE MINORS & REPRESENTED BY R-1,

R-5 TO R-7 ARE SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:01.08.2013

PASSED IN MVC NO.365/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE

PRINCIPAL

DISTRICT

JUDGE,

MEMBER,

MACT,

CHIKMAGALUR,

AWARDING

A

COMPENSATION

OF

RS.6,96,500/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE

DATE OF THE PETITION TILL RELIZATION.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,

THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

MFA 172/2014

3

JUDGMENT

1.

This appeal is by the Insurance Company challenging

the award of Rs.6,95,500/- awarded for the death of Raju.

2.

The respondents are the legal heirs of Raju who filed

a claim petition contending that a Tractor bearing

registration No.KA-18/T-5602 hit Raju while he was

traveling as a pedestrian and as a result of the collusion, he

sustained

grievous

injuries,

to

which

he

ultimately

succumbed. They claimed that he was the only bread

winner and they were entitled to be compensated for his

death.

3.

This claim was contested both by the owner, driver

and the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company took

up the specific contention that the deceased was actually

sitting on the mudguard and traveling and he was, hence,

an unauthorized passenger in the tractor and this would

indicate that the Insurance Company had absolutely no

liability.

MFA 172/2014

4

4.

The Tribunal after assessing the evidence adduced

before it, recorded a finding that an accident did occur on

08.06.2010 when the tractor bearing registration No.KA-

18/T-5602 collided with Raju which resulted in his death.

5.

The Tribunal also recorded a finding that Raju had

died when the tractor hit him while he was returning from

his home and that he was not traveling as an unauthorized

passenger. The Tribunal has observed that the explanation

given by the doctor with regard to fall from the tractor

indicated that the entry made in the wound register might

have been on the basis of some information given by the

public who had shifted Raju to the hospital, and therefore,

reliance placed upon by the Insurance Company that he

was traveling on the mudguard of the tractor cannot be

accepted.

6.

The Tribunal, thereafter, assessed the notional

income of the deceased and ultimately awarded a sum of

Rs.6,96,500/-. This award appears to have been accepted

b