IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

M.F.A. NO.30378 OF 2012 (MV)

BETWEEN:

THE BRANCH MANAGER

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.

HYDERABAD, REPTD. HEREIN BY ITS

DIVISIONAL MANAGER, JAWALI COMPLEX

SUPER MARKET, GULBARGA

...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. SHIVANAND PATIL, ADV.)

AND

1.

RANGAPPA

S/O RAMANNA YARAJENTI

AGED: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRI & COOLIE

R/O PAIDADDI, TQ. LINGASUGUR

DIST. RAICHUR, NOW AT IBRAHIMPUR

BIJAPUR

2.

RANGAMMA

W/O RANGAPPA YARAJENTI

AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD

R/O PAIDADDI, TQ. LINGASUGUR,

DIST. RAICHUR, NOW AT IBRAHIMPUR

BIJAPUR

2

3.

MOHD. ASIF

S/O BABU MIYA

AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS

R/O 2/6/14, UPPARPALLY,

REJENDRA NAGAR, RANGA REDDY,

HYDERABAD (A.P.)

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. B K HIREMATH, ADV. FOR R1 & R2

NOTICE TO R3 HELD SUFFICIENT)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT,

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.12.2011

PASSED IN MVC NO.550/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE

M.A.C.T. AND FAST TRACK COURT-I/II AT BIJAPUR,

PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION AND AWARDING THE

COMPENSATION OF RS.2,49,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6

P.A.

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS

DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the MV

Act’, for short) is filed by the Insurance Company

being aggrieved by the judgment dated 02.12.2011

passed in MVC No.550/2007 by the MACT and Fast

Track Court I/II, Bijapur.

3

For the sake of convenience, parties are referred

to as per their ranking before the Claims Tribunal.

2.

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 08.02.2006, the deceased

Manappa was traveling in a truck bearing registration

No.AP-28-U-7486 along with goods at about 3.30

p.m., on Solapur to Mohol Road, in front of Vinayak

Petrol Pump, near Kondi Village of Solapur Taluk, the

driver of the said truck drew it in a rash and negligent

manner and dashed due to which the deceased

sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. A

criminal case was registered against the driver of the

offending vehicle.

2.1. The petitioners filed a petition under

Section 166 of the MV Act seeking compensation for

the death of deceased in the road traffic accident.

2.2. Respondent No.1 remained absent and was

placed exparte.

4

2.3. Respondent No.2 filed written statement

denying the averments made in the claim petition. It

was contended that the offending vehicle was insured

with the respondent No.2. Policy was in force as on

the date of the accident. Liability, if any, is subject to

the terms and conditions of the policy. It was

contended that the risk of the gracious passengers is

not covered and deceased was traveling in the said

vehicle as an unauthorized passenger and denied the

age, income, occupation of the deceased. It was

further contended that the driver of the offending

vehicle was holding a valid and effective driving

licence as on the date of the accident. Hence, prayed

to dismiss the claim petition.

3.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,

the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and recorded

the evidence. The petitioner No.1 in order to prove

the claim petition, examined himself as PW-1 and one

5

eye-witness as PW-2 and got exhibited documents

namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. On behalf of the respondent

No.2, one witness was examined as RW-1 and got

marked Ex.R1. The Tribunal, after considering the

material on record has held that the accident took

place on account of rash and negligent driving of the

offending vehicle by its driver, as a result of which,

the deceased sustained injuries and died on the spot.

The Tribunal further held that the petitioners are

entitled for compensation and consequently allowed

the claim petition in part and awarded compensation

of Rs.2,49,000/- along with int