Skip to content


Smt. Anita W/O Vijay Pandhre and Ors Vs. Shri Ravindranath S/O Namdev Kamble & Anr - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKarnataka Kalaburagi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberMFA 200308/2015
Judge
AppellantSmt. Anita W/O Vijay Pandhre and Ors
RespondentShri Ravindranath S/O Namdev Kamble & Anr
Excerpt:
.....mr.justice s.n.satyanarayana mfa no.200308/2015 (mv) between:1. 2. 3.4. 5.6. 7. smt. anita w/o vijay pandhre aged 32 years, occ: household work kumari vaishnavi d/o vijay pandhre aged about 12 years, occ: student kumari madhvi d/o vijay pandhre age:10. years, occ: student kumar vishwajeet s/o vijay pandhre aged 8 years, occ: student kumari vaibhavi d/o vijay pandhre aged about 6 years, occ: student (appellants 2 to 5 being minors are represented by their natural mother and m/g1t appellant) namadev s/o narayan pandhre aged about 57 years, occ: agriculture smt. latika d/o namadev pandhre aged about 52 years occ: household work all r/o penur, tq. mohol dist. solapur, now residing at 2 dobale galli, vijaypur – 586 101 (by sri s.s.mamadapur, advocate) ... appellants and:1. 2......
Judgment:

1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE24H DAY OF OCTOBER, 2016 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA MFA No.200308/2015 (MV) Between:

1.

2. 3.

4. 5.

6. 7. Smt. Anita W/o Vijay Pandhre Aged 32 years, Occ: Household work Kumari Vaishnavi D/o Vijay Pandhre Aged about 12 years, Occ: Student Kumari Madhvi D/o Vijay Pandhre Age:

10. years, Occ: Student Kumar Vishwajeet S/o Vijay Pandhre Aged 8 years, Occ: Student Kumari Vaibhavi D/o Vijay Pandhre Aged about 6 years, Occ: Student (Appellants 2 to 5 being minors are represented by their natural mother and M/G1t appellant) Namadev S/o Narayan Pandhre Aged about 57 years, Occ: Agriculture Smt. Latika D/o Namadev Pandhre Aged about 52 years Occ: Household work All R/o Penur, Tq. Mohol Dist. Solapur, now residing at 2 Dobale Galli, Vijaypur – 586 101 (By Sri S.S.Mamadapur, Advocate) ... Appellants And:

1.

2. Ravindranath S/o Namdev Kamble Age:

47. years, Occ: Business R/o A-10, Shriramdarshan Phase-II Opp. Sawant Vihar Katraj Pune – 411 046 The Branch Manager National Insurance Co., Ltd., S.S.Road, Vijayapur – 586 101 ... Respondents (By Sri Anand N. Patil, Advocate for R1; Sri Rahul R. Asture, Advocate for R2) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act, praying to enhance the compensation amount payable to the appellants by suitably modifying the judgment and award dated 07.01.2015 passed by the learned Member, MACT-XII, Vijaypur, in MVC No.10/2013. This appeal is coming on for Admission this day, the Court delivered the following:- JUDGMENT

The claimants in MVC No.10/2013 on the file of MACT-XII, Vijaypur, have come up in this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded for the death of Vijay Pandhre. 3 2. The accident involving motorcycle on which Vijay Pandhre was travelling is said to have caused by Swift Car bearing registration No.MH-12/HV-8064. Admittedly, accident has taken place in Khatpal village, situated on Mohood to Karad road. The complaint was also registered with Sangola Police Station situated in Solapur District, Maharashtra State. There is nothing on record to demonstrate that the deceased-Vijay Pandhre was resident of Vijaypur and there is nothing on record to show that claimant Nos.2 to 5 are residing and pursuing their education within the limits of Vijaypur. On the contrary, the petition would itself show that they are residents of Penur village, Mohol Taluk of Solapur District.

3. Admittedly, this claim petition was filed in Karnataka State with sole intention of avoiding court fee payable on the claim petition which is calculated on ad valorem basis in Maharashtra State, as against nominal 4 fixed Court fee levied in Karnataka State which is on lower side. Further, for the reason that the Courts in Karnataka State are liberal in considering award of compensation. Therefore, there is migration of claim petitions into the State of Karnataka and burdening the Courts in this State. The instant proceeding is in no way different from the said bunch of petitions.

4. The Tribunal is benevolent enough to consider this claim petition on its merit even though no cause of action has taken place within its territorial jurisdiction right from the involvement of vehicle in the accident, residence of the claimants and as well as issuance of policy and has proceeded to consider the claim petition by awarding generous compensation in a sum of Rs.8,33,000/- payable with interest at 6% per annum. Inspite of compensation being generous, an appeal is filed by claimants seeking enhancement. 5 5. After going through the entire judgment, this Court find that no justifiable grounds are made out for admitting this appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

6. While doing so, it is observed that the Courts in Karnataka State more particularly, Courts situated in the border district of the State should be more cautious while considering the claim petition filed in matters where no part of cause of action to file claim petition arise within the State of Karnataka. In respect of accidents which are caused outside the State of Karnataka, the claim petitions shall be entertained only under following circumstances: a) the claimants are permanent residents within territorial jurisdiction of the Court where the claim petition is filed. b) Or, in the alternative, the owner/s of the offending vehicle/s are permanently residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the court where claim petition is filed 6 c) Or, in the alternative, the policy issued by the insurer/one of the insurer to cover the liability of the offending vehicle/s is/are from its branch situated within the local limits of the said Court. In all other case/s, where none of the above cause has taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of said Court, the same shall not be entertained. In the instant case, the claim petition is already decided by the Tribunal. Hence, when the judgment impugned is looked into on its merits, this Court find no justifiable grounds are made out to consider enhancement. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed. JUDGE Sd/- NB* Ct:MHS


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //