This appeal is filed by the claimant seeking

enhancement of compensation as against the judgment

and award dated 13.09.2017 in MVC No.466/2016 on the

file of the IV Additional District Judge and MACT-XIII,

Vijayapur.

It is the case of the claimant that on

05.01.2016, at about 07-00 p.m., the deceased was

proceeding towards his land on a motorcycle bearing

registration No.KA-29-R-8217 on the Ugalawat-Mustigeri

road slowly with caution. A Tum Tum vehicle bearing

No.KA-29-A-8409 came from Ugalawat road towards

3

Mustigeri dashed the motorcycle of the deceased.

Consequently, he sustained injuries and died on the way

to the hospital.

3.

A complaint was filed by the brother of the

deceased on 05.01.2016. The case was registered in

Crime No.3/2016 against the driver of the Tum Tum

vehicle and after investigation, chargesheet was filed.

4.

P.W.1 being the mother of deceased Manjunath

filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking

compensation.

The

Tribunal

awarded

a

sum

of

Rs.9,41,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. The claimant

being not satisfied with the award passed by the Tribunal

has filed this appeal seeking enhancement.

5.

Heard Sri Harshavardhan R. Malipatil, learned

counsel for the appellant and Sri Manvendra Reddy,

learned counsel for respondent No.2.

4

6.

Sri Harshavardhan R. Malipatil submits that,

the award passed by the Tribunal is contrary to the law

and facts. Hence, it is liable to be set aside and required

to be modified. He further submits that the claimant has

sought

enhancement

of

compensation

different

conventional heads and to fasten the liability on

respondent No.2. The Tribunal ought not to have arrived

at a conclusion that there is violation of permit condition

and should not have fixed the liability on the owner of the

Tum Tum vehicle. He further submits that though the

Insurance company has failed to establish that the

accident occurred beyond the permit area, the Tribunal

held that the accident occurred beyond the permit area

cannot be accepted. In support of his contention, he cited

the judgments of co – ordinate bench of this Court as

follows:

(a).

No.30752/2011

and

connected

matters, Smt. Sangeeta and Others vs

Satish and another dated 11.07.2018.

5

(b)

No.201648/2015

C/w

No.200325/2015, MFA No.201533/2015

and MFA CROB. No.200025/2016, Abdul

Rouf vs Megharaj Mehdole and others

dated 26.11.2020.

The learned counsel for the appellant sought to allow the

appeal and modify the judgment and award dated

13.09.2017 in MVC No.466/2016.

7.

Per contra, Sri Manvendra Reddy, learned

counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company seeks to

justify the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal

and contends that the driver of the Tum Tum vehicle had

violated the permit condition and he did not have valid

driving licence. The Tribunal has rightly absolved the

liability of the Insurance Company. Hence, he sought to

dismiss the appeal as against the Insurance company.

8.

After having heard the learned counsel for the

parties and perusing the documents on record, the points

which would arise for our consideration are as follows:

6

1.

Whether the claimant has made out a ground

fastening

liability

the

insurance

company?

2.

Whether the claimant has made out a ground

for enhancement of the compensation as

against the award passed by the Tribunal?

9.

It is the submission of the learned counsel for

the claimant/appellant that the Tum Tum vehicle which

was plying near Ugalawat village dashed against the

motorcycle of the deceased and the pillion rider died in the

accident. The Tribunal while fixing the liability,

exonerated the Insurance company holding that, the

driver of the Tum Tum Vehicle had violated the permit

condition. The observation made by the Tribunal is that,

the Tum Tum vehicle was supposed to be plied within the

limits of Kerur panchayath and around 10 kms. However,

the accident occurred beyond the permit area, as such

liability on the insurer cannot be fixed. To meet this

point, sub – sectio