1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF MAY, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

MFA No.32824/2013 (MV)

BETWEEN:

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO., LTD.,

THROUGH THE MANAGER

ADONI TQ. BRANCH, TQ. ADONI

NOW REPRESENTED BY

THE REGIONAL MANAGER

MTP CLAIMS HUB 2^ND FLOOR

SRINATH COMPLEX

NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBLI

... APPELLANT

(BY SMT. SHASHIKALA JAGIRDAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

CHANDRAPPA S/O LINGAPPA

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

OCC: AGRICULTURE

2.

LAXMI DEVI W/O CHANDRAPPA

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

OCC: HOUSEHOLD

BOTH ARE R/O SREEDHARAGADDE

TQ. SIRUGUPPA AND ALSO

GOUNDANABAVI VILLAGE

2

TQ. SINDHANUR

3.

MAREPPA S/O NAGAPPA

OWNER OF TRACTOR KA-34/TR-1137

R/O SREEDHARAGADDE

TQ. SIRUGUPPA, DIST. BELLARY

4.

THE AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY

OF IFFCO TOKIO GIC LIMITED

OPP. LAXMI TEMPLE

DAJBENPETI, HUBLI

5.

N.G.PAMPAPATHI

S/O GATTI RUDRAPPA

OWNER OF TRAILOR NO.KA-34/T-4344

R/O NAGALAPUR VILLAGE

TQ. SIRUGUPPA, DIST. BELLARY

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADVOCATE FOR R5;

R3 & R4-SERVED)

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED

UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MV ACT PRAYING TO

SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED

05.09.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.155/2011 BY THE

MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT LINGASUGUR

SITTING AT SINDHANUR.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS

DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

3

JUDGMENT

The appellant has not taken steps in respect of

respondent Nos.1 and 2/claimants. Since this matter

is covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Sant Lal vs. Rajesh and Others

in Civil Appeal Nos.8395-8396/2017, the matter

is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the

learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company.

2.

This appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of

the Motor Vehicles Act (for short ‘the Act’) challenging

the judgment and award dated 05.09.2013 passed by

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lingasugur sitting

at Sindhanur, (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘the

Tribunal’) in MVC No.155/2011.

3.

Parties are referred to as per their rankings

before the Tribunal.

4

4.

Brief facts giving rise to filing of this appeal

are as under:

On

01.12.2010

at

about

3.00

p.m.,

the

deceased-Veena was in the land along with her

parents. At that time, the driver of the tractor-trailer

drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and

ran over the body of Veena. Due to the same, she

sustained injuries all over the body and succumbed to

the injuries. Therefore, the claimants who are parents

of the deceased filed claim petition under Section 166

of the Act.

5.

The owners of the tractor trailer have not

filed

written

statement.

The

second

respondent/insurer filed written statement denying

the averments made in the claim petition and also

denied the name, address, age, cause of accident,

place and death etc. It is contended that as on the

5

date of the accident, the tractor in question was not

having registration after laps of temporary registration

period of one month. The police have filed charge

sheet in respect of non-registration of the vehicle

which amounts to violation of the terms and

conditions of the policy. It is further contended that

the driver of the tractor did not possess valid and

effective driving licence and prayed for dismissal of

the claim petition against the second respondent. The

fourth respondent/insurer filed written statement

reiterating the averments made in the written

statement filed by the second respondent/insurer and

prayed for dismissal of the claim petition against the

fourth respondent/insurer.

6.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,

the Tribunal framed the following issues:

i.

Whether the petitioners prove that the

alleged accident occurred due to rash

6

and negligent driving of Tractor and

Trailer

bearing

registration

No.KA-

34/TR-1137