IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

M.F.A. NO.201651 OF 2016 (MV)

BETWEEN:

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD,

OPP. MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA

STATION ROAD, KALABURAGI.

...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. S. S. ASPALLI, ADV.)

AND

1.

MAHADEVAMMA

W/O LATE TIPPANNA

AGE:51 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD.

2.

SABANNA

S/O LATE TIPPANNA

AGE:29 YEARS, OCC:COOLIE.

3.

SHANTAMMA

D/O LATE TIPPANNA

AGE:19 YEARS, OCC:NIL,

ALL R/O HORUNCHA VILLAGE

TQ & DIST:YADGIRI - 585201

2

4.

MALLIKARJUN

S/O SHIVAPPA KHANDAPNOOR

AGE:36 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF VEHICLE

R/O:HATTIKUNIM CAMP POST

HATTIKUNIT

TQ & DIST:YADGIRI - 585201

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. BABU H. METAGUDDA, ADV. FOR R1-R3)

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

TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN MVC NO.238/2015 ON THE

FILE

OF

THE

MEMBER

MACT-II

YADGIRI

DATED

31.08.2016. AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD

DATED 31.08.2016 IN MVC NO.238/2015 PASSED BY

MEMBER MACT-II YADGIRI.

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION 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 Act’,

for short) is filed by the Insurance Company being

aggrieved by the judgment dated 31.08.2016 passed

in MVC No.238/2015 by the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Yadgiri.

3

2.

For the sake of convenience, the parties

are referred as per their ranking before the Trial

Court.

3. Facts giving rise to filing of the appeal briefly

stated are that on 10.03.2014 at about 11.30 a.m., on

Yadgir-Hyderabad

road

near

Kandkoor

cross,

deceased Tippanna was proceeding in Auto bearing

Registration No.KA-33-7193, at that time the driver of

the auto drove the same with high speed in a rash and

negligent manner and lost control over the Auto and

the vehicle turned turtle. As a result of the aforesaid

accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and

succumbed to the same while under treatment.

3.1. The petitioners thereupon filed a petition

under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation

under Section 166 of the MV Act.

4

3.2. Respondent No.1 did not appear before the

Tribunal and was placed ex parte.

3.3. The insurance company filed written

statement in which the mode and manner of the

accident was denied. Further, the age and income of

the deceased are denied. It was also pleaded that the

driver of the offending vehicle did not hold a valid and

effective driving license at the time of accident and

pleaded that respondent No.1 violated the terms of

the policy and hence respondent No.2 is not liable to

pay compensation to the petitioners. Hence prayed to

dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.2.

3.4. On the basis of the pleadings of the

parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the following

issues:

1.

Whether the petitioners prove that, on

10.03.2014 at 11.30 a.m. on Yadgir-

Hyderabad main road near Kandkoor

cross

the

deceased

Tippanna

was

5

proceeding in Auto No.KA-33-7193 at

that time the driver of auto drove with

high speed in rashly and negligently lost

his control and turned turtle and caused

accident and he sustained grievous

injuries and died during course of

treatment?

2.

Whether the respondent No.2 proves

that, the Auto driver did not possess

valid driving licence at the time of

accident?

3.

Whether the respondent No.2 proves

that respondent No.1 violated the terms

of the permit?

4.

Whether the petitioners are entitled for

compensation? If so, what rate and

against whom?

5.

What order or award?

3.5. In order to prove the case of petitioners,

petitioner No.1 examined herself as PW-1 and got

exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. On

behalf of respondent No.2, one witness is examined as

RW-1 and Ex.R1 is marked. The Claims Tribunal, by

the impugned judgment held that the accident took

place on a