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

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BHEEMRAO S/O MALLAPPA HOSADODDI – Appellant
Versus
HAWAPPA KAMBLE S/O PEERAPPA KAMBLE, – Respondent
MFA/200115/2015



MFA No.200115/2015

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

MFA No.200115/2015 (MV)

Between:

Bheemrao S/o Mallappa Hosadoddi,

Age: 51 years, Occ: Member of Gram Panchayat

and Business,

R/o Village Byalhalli-K, Tq. Bhalki,

Dist. Bidar-585328.

... Appellant

(By Sri. Basavaraj.R.Math, Advocate)

And:

1.

Hawappa Kamble son of Peerappa Kamble,

Age: 68 years, Occ: Labour.

2.

Sundramma W/o Hawappa Kamble,

Age: 63 years, Occ: Housewife,

<

Both are resident of village Chickpet,

Tq. and Dist. Bidar-584101.

3.

Nagraj S/o Shamrao,

Age: Major, Occ: Driver,

Resident of village Byalhalli-K,

Tq. Bhalki, Dist. Bidar-585328.

... Respondents

(By Sri. Sudhakar Rao, Advocate for R1 & 2;

Notice to R3 served)

MFA No.200115/2015

2

This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of M.V.Act,

praying to call for records and set aside the impugned

judgment and award dated 10.12.2014 passed by the Prl.

MACT and Prl. District Judge at Bidar in MVC No.84/2012,

in the interest of justice and equity.

This appeal coming on for admission this day, the

Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

This appeal, though listed for admission, is taken

up for final disposal with the consent of the learned

counsel appearing for the parties.

2.

This appeal is filed by the owner of the

vehicle against the award of compensation to the

parents of the deceased in MVC No.84/2012 by its

judgment and award dated 10.12.2014.

3.

Parties will be referred to as per their

ranking before the Claims Tribunal.

4.

Brief facts leading to the filing of the

present appeal are that on 03.07.2011 the deceased

MFA No.200115/2015

3

along with other labourers were loading goods into the

tractor bearing Reg.No.MYI-4851 for transporting it

from one place to the one other and after loading,

they were traveling in the same vehicle. The tractor

was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, due

to which the driver of the vehicle lost control resulting

in turning of the vehicle upside down. The deceased

sustained grievous injuries to the vital parts of the

body and died while taking treatment at Government

Hospital, Bidar. The owner of the Tractor-appellant

herein entered into a settlement with the wife of the

deceased by paying her Rs.3,00,000/- as amount of

compensation and closed the issue. Later the parents

of the deceased, claiming to be the dependents of the

deceased

filed

MVC

No.84/2012

claiming

compensation on the death of their son/deceased.

The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the

parties even while noticing the fact that the claim was

MFA No.200115/2015

4

settled with Kasturibai, wife of the deceased awarded

compensation of Rs.6,50,000/- to the parents of the

deceased. It is this order i.e. called in question by the

appellant-owner of the vehicle in this appeal.

5.

Heard

Sri.

Basavaraj.R.Math,

learned

counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. Sudhakar

Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent

Nos.1 and 2.

6.

The learned counsel appearing for the

owner of the vehicle Sri. Basavaraj.R.Math would

contend that the owner of the vehicle tendered

evidence that she has settled the matter with the wife

of the deceased, but did not examine the wife of the

deceased before the Tribunal and would contend that

fastening of the liability of payment of compensation

of Rs.6,50,000/- to the parents of the deceased who

were never the dependents is erroneous.

MFA No.200115/2015

5

7.

I have given my anxious consideration to

the submissions made by the learned counsel for the

parties and perused the records.

8.

The contention of the learned counsel

appearing for the appellant-owner of the vehicle

appears plausible as in his evidence he submits that

he has given Rs.3,00,000/- to the wife of the

deceased as a settlement/compensation for the death

of her husband

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