Karnataka High Court
M/S Oriental Insurance Company vs Mr Muthappa on 6 December, 2021
Bench: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.5795 OF 2016(MV)
BETWEEN:
M/S ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY
1ST FLOOR,POOVA ARCADE
N.H.17,SURATHKAL
MANGALORE
THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE
LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX,NO.44/45
RESIDENCY ROAD
BANGALORE-560 025
REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGIONAL MANAGER
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.B S UMESH, ADV.)
AND
1. MR MUTHAPPA
S/O LATE BABU POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT KOMBEL LACHIL HOUSE
PADU POST
BONDANTHILA VILLAGE
MANGALORE TALUK
DAKSHINA KANNADA
2
DISTRICT-575 029.
2. MR ASHOKA
S/O BABU POOJARY
MAJOR,
R/AT DOOR NO.3-12/3
VAMANJOOR
MANGALORE
DAKSHINA KANNADA
DISTRICT-575 028.
3. SATHISH
S/O KESHAVA POOJARY
MAJOR
KOMBEL LACHIL HOSUE
PADU POST
BONDANTHILA VILLAGE
MANGALORE TALUK
DAKSHINA KANNADA
DISTRICT-575 029.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VISHWAS, ADV. FOR
SRI.NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY, ADV. FOR R1:
7 R3 ARE SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:18.6.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.348/2014 ON
THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, MANGALURU, D.K.,
AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.1,19,200/-
3
WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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) has been filed by the Insurance Company
being aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.6.2016
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Mangaluru in MVC 348/2014.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 24.8.2013, the claimant
along with his mother and others, after purchasing
provisions were proceeding towards their residence in
a Maruthi Car bearing registration No.KA-19-2728
near Bantukatta, at that time, the driver of the said
car drove the same at a high speed and in a rash and
negligent manner, lost control and dashed the car
against a retaining wall by the side of the road. 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 he 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 respondents
appeared through counsel and filed written statements
in which the averments made in the petition were
denied.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,
the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter
recorded the evidence. The claimant himself was
examined as PW-1 and got exhibited documents
namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. On behalf of the
respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 and
got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1. 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.119,200/- 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 Insurance
Company has contended that the offending vehicle
was covered with insurance policy, which is an Act
policy. It covers statutory liability, which includes PA
coverage and additional coverage of driver, conductor
and cleaner. The case of the claimant is that he was
proceeding in the offending vehicle along with his
mother and others after purchasing the provisions and
they were proceeding in the car along with the driver,
who was their relative. It is not the case of the
claimant that he was a cleaner or conductor in the
offending vehicle or that the offending vehicle was
taken on hire. Therefore, the Insurance Company is
not liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal has failed
to consider this aspect of the matter and it is not
justified in fastening the liability on the Insurance
Company. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for
the claimant has contended that the accident occurred
due to the rash and negligent driving of the car. They
were traveling in the car as inmates and the offending
vehicle was covered with valid insurance policy.
Therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay
compensation to the claimant. The Tribunal has rightly
fastened liability on the Insurance Company. Hence,
he sought for dismissal of the appeal.
8. The drive and owner of the offending
vehicle are served and unrepresented.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the records.
10. The case of the claimant is that on
24.8.2013 at 1:00 p.m., the claimant along with his
mother and others, after purchasing provisions were
proceeding towards their residence in a Maruthi Car
bearing registration No.KA-19-2728 near Bantukatta,
at that time, the driver of the said car drove the same
at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner,
lost control and dashed the car against a retaining
wall by the side of the road. As a result of the
aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous
injuries and was hospitalized.
The insurance policy has been produced and
marked as Ex.R-1. It is very clear from the policy that
it is an Act Policy. An amount of Rs.941/- has been
collected for TP cover, Rs.100/- has been collected for
PA coverage for owner and driver and Rs.50/- has
been collected for driver, conductor and cleaner.
It is not the case of the claimant that he was
traveling as a cleaner or conductor in the car. It is
also not his case that he has taken the car on hire.
Therefore, it is very clear from the policy that it does
not cover the risk of the inmates of the car. Therefore,
the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the
owner. The Tribunal without considering this aspect of
the matter has erred in fastening the liability on the
Insurance Company.
11. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The
judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.
The respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the Tribunal,
who are driver and owner of the offending vehicle are
jointly and severally liable to pay compensation
amount. The owner of the offending vehicle is directed
to deposit the compensation amount awarded by the
Tribunal along with interest 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.
The Insurance Company is exonerated from
liability.
The amount in deposit is ordered to be refunded
to the appellant forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DM
