Smt Sharadha vs M/S Reliance General Insurance ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 5174 Kant

                             1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

                         BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

                MFA No.8068 OF 2018(MV)

BETWEEN:

Smt. Sharadha,
W/o K.R.Ravi,
Aged about 32 years,
Resident of
No.681, Karikallu,
Bengaluru-560 073.

Present Resident of
No.158,1st main,
Muneshwara Layout,
Doddabidrakallu,
Bengaluru-560 073.                       ... Appellant

(By Sri. Chandrashekaraiah B., Advocate)

AND:

1.     M/s. Reliance General Insurance
       Company Limited,
       By its Manager,
       No.3, Manandi Plaza,
       St. Marks road,
       Benaluru-560 001.

2.     Sri. Basavaraju,
       S/o Puttaswamy Gowda,
       No.212/16, 9th Cross,
                             2



     2nd Block, Vrushabhavathi Channel,
     Nandini Layout,
     Bengaluru-560 096.             ... Respondents

(By Sri. H.C.Betsur, Advocate for R1:
Notice to R2 Held sufficient)

      This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act,
against the Judgment and Award dated:21.05.2016 passed
in MVC No.293/2015 on the file of the 13th Additional
Judge, Court of Small Causes and Member, MACT,
Bangalore, partly allowing the claim petition for
compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.

      This MFA, coming on for orders, this day, this 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) has been filed by the claimant being

aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.05.2016 passed

by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru

(SCCH:15) in MVC No.293/2015.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 17.01.2015 at about 6.31

p.m. the claimant was proceeding on the left side of

Nelagadaranahalli road opposite to Ravi Studio. At

that time, car bearing registration No.KA-02/D-6204

being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a

rash and negligent manner came from Prerana

Motors, Peenya and dashed against the claimant. As

a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant

sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.

3. The claimant filed a petition under Section

166 of the Act seeking compensation. It was pleaded

that she spent huge amount towards medical

expenses, conveyance, etc. It was further pleaded

that the accident occurred purely on account of the

rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by

its driver.

4. On service of notice, the respondent No.1

appeared through counsel and filed written statement

in which the averments made in the petition were

denied. The age, avocation and income of the claimant

and the medical expenses are denied. It was pleaded

that the petition itself is false and frivolous in the eye

of law. It was further pleaded that the driver of the

offending vehicle did not have valid driving licence as

on the date of the accident. The liability is subject to

terms and conditions of the policy. It was further

pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by

the claimant is exorbitant. Hence, he sought for

dismissal of the petition.

The respondent No.2 did not appear before the

Tribunal inspite of service of notice and was placed

ex-parte.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,

the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter

recorded the evidence. The claimant herself was

examined as PW-1 and other two witnesses as PW2

and PW-3 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1

to Ex.P12. On behalf of the respondents, three

witnesses were examined as RW-1 to RW-3 and got

exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R7. The

Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia,

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 claimant sustained

injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is

entitled to a compensation of Rs.3,33,600/- along with

interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and directed the

Insurance Company to deposit the compensation

amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this

appeal has been filed.

6. The learned counsel for the claimant has

raised the following contentions:

Firstly, due to the accident the claimant suffered

grievous injuries, she was inpatient for a period of one

day and she has been taking up the follow up

treatment for six months. Therefore, compensation

awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side.

Secondly, the Tribunal after considering the

evidence of the parties has come to the conclusion

that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having

a valid and effective driving licence. Since the insured

has violated the policy conditions the Insurance

Company is not liable to pay the compensation. The

offending vehicle was covered with valid insurance

policy in respect of third parties are concerned,

therefore, the Insurance Company has to pay the

compensation with liberty to recover the same from

the owner of the offending vehicle. In support of his

contentions, he has relied on the judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'PAPPU AND

OTHERS vs. VINOD KUMAR LAMBA AND

ANOTHER' AIR 2018 SC 592. Hence, he sought for

allowing the appeal.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for

the Insurance Company has raised the following

contentions:

Firstly, the injuries suffered by the claimant are

minor in nature, she was inpatient for only one day.

Considering the injuries suffered by the claimant and

considering the age and avocation, the overall

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and

reasonable.

Secondly, in view of the Division Bench decision

of this Court in the case of MS.JOYEETA BOSE AND

OTHERS vs. VENKATESHAN.V AND OTHERS (MFA

5896/2018 and connected matters disposed of

on 24.8.2020), the interest granted by the Tribunal

at the rate of 9% p.a. is on the higher side and the

same has to be reduced to 6% p.a.

Thirdly, the Tribunal has given a clear finding

that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having

valid and effective driving licence to drive the said

vehicle. The finding of the Tribunal has not been

challenged either by the owner or the insured. Since

the insured has violate the policy conditions the

Tribunal has rightly exonerated the Insurance

Company. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the

appeal.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Perused the judgment and award.

9. It is not in dispute that the claimant

suffered injuries in the accident occurred due to rash

and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its

driver.

Due to the injuries the claimant has suffered

dislocated right patella, soft tissue swelling over the

right knee joint and other injuries. She was inpatient

for a period of one day. Considering the evidence of

the doctor and considering the injuries suffered by the

claimant I am of the opinion that the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.

Re.liability:

10. The Tribunal after considering the evidence

of the parties and the materials available on record

has come to the conclusion that as on the date of the

accident the driver of the offending vehicle was not

having valid and effective driving licence. Therefore,

the Tribunal is justified in exonerating the Insurance

Company. However, in view of the law laid down by

the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of PAPPU

(supra), the Insurance Company has to pay the

compensation at the first instance with liberty to

recover the same from the owner of the offending

vehicle.

Accordingly, the Insurance Company is directed

to deposit the compensation amount along with

interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim

petition till the date of realization, within a period of

six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this

judgment excluding interest for the delayed period of

772 days in filing the appeal. To the aforesaid extent,

the judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.

In view of disposal of the appeal, the pending

IAs. do not survive for consideration.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Cm/-