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

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KAMALABAI W/O PUNDALIK KUMBAR @ KARABANTANAL ORS – Appellant
Versus
BASAVARAJ ADIVEPPA METI ANR – Respondent
MFA/31520/2011



1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH, 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA

MFA NO.31520/2011 (MV)

BETWEEN:

1. KAMALABAI W/O PUNDALIK KUMBAR

@ KARABANTANAL,

AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

2. PUNDALIK S/O LAKKAPPA KUMBAR

@ KARABANTANAL,

AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: EMPLOYEE,

3. BHAGYAVANT S/O PUNDALIK KUMBAR

@ KARABANTANAL,

AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,

ALL R/O. KARABANTANALA

TQ. B. BAGEWADI, DIST. BIJAPUR.

(VIDE ORDER DATED 14.12.2011 APPELLANTS NO.2 AND 3

IS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN)

... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI.HARSHAVARDHAN.R.MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

2

1.

BASAVARAJ ADIVEPPA METI

AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,

R/O. 3RD CROSS, VIDYAGIRI AT

TALUK AND DIST. BAGALKOT.

2.

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,

S.S.FRONT ROAD, BIJAPUR.

... RESPONDENTS

(SRI.SUDARSHAN.M., ADVOCATE FOR R2;

NOTICE TO SERVED R1)

THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MV

ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND AWARD

COMPENSATION OF Rs.4,24,000/- (EXCLUDING THE

AMOUNT AWARDED BY THE TRIBUNAL) ALONG WITH

INTEREST

@

12%

P.A.

BY

MODIFYING

AND

JUDGEMENT AND AWARD OF THE SENIOR CIVIL

JUDGE

&

MEMBER,

MACT

NO.IX,

BASAVANA

BAGEWADI,

DATED

01.06.2011

IN

MVC

(OLD

NO.1351/2010) NO.119/2010.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS

DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

3

JUDGMENT

Unfortunate parents and brothers of the deceased

have filed present appeal against the judgment and

award passed on 01.06.2011 made in MVC.No.119/

2010 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and MACT.No.IX,

Basavan Bagewadi, awarding a total compensation of

Rs.3,56,000/- with 6% interest per annum.

02.

It is the case of the claimants that on

26.06.2010

at

about

01.00

p.m.

the

deceased

Chandrakant along with his friend were going on the

motorcycle

bearing

Reg.No.KA-28-S-2054

from

Karabantanal to Bagalkot. When they were came near

Rampur Railway Gate on Rampur – Almatti road, at that

time a Tipper bearing Reg.No.KA-29-A-1123 came from

opposite direction in a high speed driven by its driver in

a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the

motorcycle and caused the accident. As a result both

the rider and pillion rider were fell down on the road

4

and Chandrakant was sustained grievous injuries and

died on the spot. It is further case of the petitioner that

deceased was hale and healthy and he was completed

B.A. Education and working as private job and thereby

getting an income of Rs.8,000/- per month. Deceased

was sole bread earner of his family. The accident

occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of

respondent No.1. The respondents No.1 and 2 are

jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

Accordingly,

they

claimed

compensation

of

Rs.7,80,000/-.

03.

After service of notice the respondent No.1

appeared and filed written statement denying all the

averments made in the claim petition and contended

that accident occurred due to rash and negligent on the

part of deceased and not on account of rash and

negligent on the part of respondent No.1. But

5

respondent No.1 has got his vehicle insured with

respondent No.2. The policy is also in force. He further

contended that driver of the vehicle having valid D.L. to

drive the vehicle. Therefore, he is not liable to pay the

compensation.

04.

After service of notice the respondent No.2-

Insurance Company appeared and also filed written

statement denying allegation made by the claimants

and contended that driver of motorcycle was rash and

negligent in driving without D.L and caused the alleged

accident and died due to his own negligence. There was

no contributory negligence on the part of driver of

Tipper and Insurance Company does not admit the

issuance of Policy and etc., Therefore, Respondent No.2-

Insurance Company prays for dismissal of appeal.

6

05.

Based on the aforesaid rival pleadings, the

Tribunal framed the following issues;

01.

Whether the petitioner prove that

on 26.05.2010 at about 01.00

a.m.

when

the

deceased

Chandrakant

s

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top