AND

AWARD

DTD:10.09.2013,

PASSED

IN

MVC.NO.193/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND

MACT AT GANGAVATHI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF

RS.5,70,000/- WITH THE INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM

THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALISATION.

IN MFA CROB.NO.100120/2014

- 3 -

RENUKAMMA W/O. BALAPPA,

AGE 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,

HULIGEMMA D/O. BALAPPA,

AGE 14 YEARS, OCC: NIL,

MARUTHI S/O. BALAPPA,

AGE 12 YEARS, OCC: NIL,

BOTH ARE MINORS, REPTD. BY

NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER I.E.

PETITIONER No.1 SMT. RENUKAMMA W/O. BALAPPA

DYAMANNA S/O. BALAPPA,

AGE 67 YEARS, OCC: NIL.

DEVAMMA W/O. DYAMANNA,

AGE 62 YEARS, OCC: NIL,

ALL ARE R/O. VENKATAGIRI,

TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL.

…CROSS OBJECTORS

(BY SRI. AMAREGOUDA, ADVOCATE FOR CROSS-OBJECTORS)

REHAMANSAB S/O. MOULASAB,

AGE 42 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF TRACTOR AND

TRAILER BEARING No.KA-37/TA-3456 AND

KA-37/T-6155, R/O. VADDARAHATTI,

TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL.

ERAPPA RALIKOTTI S/O. AYYAPPA,

AGE 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS AND

OWNER OF THE TRACTOR AND TRAILER

BEARING No.KA-37/TA-3456 AND KA-37/T-6155,

R/O. VADDARAHATTI, TQ. GANGAVATHI,

DIST. KOPPAL.

THE BRANCH MANAGER,

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,

SANMAN COMPLEX, ISLMANPUR,

GANGAVATHI, ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICER,

- 4 -

GANDHI CHOWK, RAICHUR.

(SRI. VIJAYKUMAR B. HORATTI, ADV. FOR R1 & R2;

SRI. A.G.JADHAV, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

THIS MFA CROB. IN MFA No.24987/2013 FILED UNDER ORDER

41 RULE 22 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED

10.09.2013 PASSED IN MVC No.193/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, AT GANGAVATHI, PARTLY

ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING

ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

THESE APPEAL & CROSS OBJECTIONS COMING ON FOR

ORDERS THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING

HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Heard the appellant counsel in MFA No.24987/2013

and also the counsel for the respondent-claimants.

The factual matrix of the case of the claimants

before the tribunal is that, the deceased Balappa was met

with an accident when her husband and Tirupateppa i.e.

P.W.2 were standing by the side of the river bund and

driver of the drove the same in a rash and negligent

manner, as a result, he lost his conscious and immediately

he was taken to the hospital where he was taken

- 5 -

treatment and died on account of the injuries sustained

by him.

It is their claim that he was earning Rs.6,000/-

per month and due to the death, the claimants they lost

the earning member of the family. The Insurance company

took different defences in the written statement. The

claimant examined one witness and also the eyewitness to

the incident i.e. P.W.2 and respondents have examined

one witness as R.W.1 and also got marked documents at

Ex.R.1.

The tribunal after assessing both oral and

documentary evidence allowed the claim petition granting

compensation of Rs.5,70,000/- with 6% interest. Hence,

the present appeal is filed by the Insurance company and

also the claimants for enhancement of the compensation.

The main contention of the counsel appearing

for the Insurance company is that, the tribunal has failed

to take note of the evidence of P.W.2, who gave an

- 6 -

evidence before the Court that, he himself and the

deceased worked as coolies in order to load the sand and

also he categorically says that the tractor was used for

hire purpose and hence there is a clear violation of policy

conditions and the tractor was used for business and

Ex.R.1 policy speaks that the tractor was meant for

agricultural purpose and sand is not the agricultural

product by carrying the sand in the tractor-trailer and in

spite of it, the tribunal has fastened the liability on the

Insurance company. Learned counsel also would submits

that, in order to substantiate the said contention R.W.1 is

also examined before the tribunal and the tribunal has also

not considered the same.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents would also submits that, at the time of the

accident the deceased as well