Karnataka High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co. ... vs Jayamma on 11 January, 2021
Author: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.9291 OF 2013(MV)
C/W
MFA No.9292 OF 2013(MV)
IN MFA 9291/2013
BETWEEN:
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED
S.M.TOWERS, 2ND FLOOR,
11TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-11
NOW AT NO.28, 5TH FLOOR,
EAST WING, CENTENARY BUILDING
M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
BY ITS MANAGER (LEGAL).
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.H.S.LINGARAJ, ADV. )
AND
1. JAYAMMA
NOW AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA.
2. ANITHA
NOW AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
2
D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA.
3. GANGAMMA
NOW AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
W/O LATE. CHIKKATHIMMAIAH
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
BUKKAPATTANA, KORATAGERE TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 129.
4. SUJATHA, MAJOR
W/O G.H.PRAKASHA
NO.5971, " MAHIMARANGASWAMY NILAYA"
GOVINDAPPA LAYOUT
SUBHASH NAGAR
NELAMANGALA TOWN-562 123.
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PATEL D KAREGOWDA, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3:
SRI. GANESH N., ADV. FOR R4)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:31.07.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.60/2011 ON
THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JDUGE &
MACT, MADHUGIRI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
Rs.7,70,857/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE
DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
3
IN MFA 9292/2013
BETWEEN:
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED
S.M.TOWERS, 2ND FLOOR,
11TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-11
NOW AT NO.28, 5TH FLOOR,
EAST WING, CENTENARY BUILDING
M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
BY ITS MANAGER (LEGAL).
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. H.S.LINGARAJ, ADV.)
AND
1. NARASIMHAMURTHY
NOW AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
S/O NARASIMHAIAH
R/O KALKERE, KORATAGERER TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 129.
2. SUJATHA, MAJOR
W/O G.H.PRAKASHA
NO.5971, " MAHIMARANGASWAMY NILAYA"
GOVINDAPPA LAYOUT
SUBHASH NAGAR
NELAMANGALA TOWN-562 123.
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PATEL D KAREGOWDA, ADV. FOR R1:
SRI. V.DHIKSHITH., ADV. FOR R2)
4
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:31.07.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.61/2011 ON
THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JDUGE &
MACT-XIII, MADHUGIRI, AWARDING COMPENSATION
OF Rs.2,87,696/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM
THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION( EXCEPT
FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENDITURE).
THESE MFAs COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
These appeals under Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act',
for short) have been filed by the Insurance Company
being aggrieved by the judgment dated 31.7.2013
dated by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeals
briefly stated are that on 16.12.2009, the deceased
Krishnappa and claimant Narasimhamurthy were
proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-
06-X-343 from Kalkere to Bangalore on Tumkur
Bangalore NH4 road near Dodderi Village, at that
time, lorry bearing registration No.KA-04-B-8859
being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a
rash and negligent manner, dashed to the motorcycle.
As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased
Krishnappa sustained grievous injuries and succumbed
to the injuries on 9.3.2010 and claimant
Narasimhamurty sustained grievous injuries and was
hospitalized.
3. The claimants filed a petition under Section
166 of the Act on the ground that they also 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.2
filed written statement in which the averments made
in the petition were denied. It was pleaded that the
petition itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law.
It was further pleaded that the accident was due to
the rash and negligent riding of the vehicle by the
deceased himself. 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. The age, avocation and
income of the claimant and the medical expenses are
denied. 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.1 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. In MVC 60/2011, the wife of
the deceased Krishnappa was examined as PW-1 and
claimant in MVC 61/2011 was examined as PW-2 and
Dr.Mruthunjaya was examined as PW-3 and got
exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P40. On
behalf of the respondents, one witness was examined
as RW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1
to Ex.R2. 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 deceased succumbed to injuries and claimant
sustained injuries. The Tribunal further held that the
claimants in MVC 60/2011 are entitled to a
compensation of Rs.7,70,857/- and claimant in MVC
61/2011 is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,87,696/-
along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed
the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation
amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, these
appeals have been filed.
6. The learned counsel for the Insurance
Company has contended that at the time of the
accident, Mr.Gaddegowda, the driver of the lorry was
not having valid driving licence. Since the insured has
violated the policy conditions, the Insurance Company
is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants.
Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the
Insurance Company has to indemnify the insured is
contrary to the materials available on record. Hence,
he sought for allowing the appeals.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for
the claimants has filed a memo of even date along
with the copy of the driving licence issued in favour of
Mr.Gaddegowda, driver of the offending lorry. It is
very clear from the said licence that the driving
licence has been renewed and it is valid from 5.3.2007
to 4.3.2010 with an endorsement for driving transport
vehicle. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeals.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the records.
9. The memo filed by the learned counsel for
the claimants along with the copy of the driving
licence issued in favour of the driver of the lorry is
taken on record.
10. It is not in dispute that the deceased
krishnappa died in the accident and claimant
Narasimhamurthy sustained injuries in the accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
offending vehicle by its driver. The Tribunal on the
basis of the materials available on record has held
that the Insurance Company has to indemnify the
insured and pay compensation to the claimants.
The only contention of the learned counsel for
the Insurance Company is that the driver of the
offending lorry was not having valid driving licence as
on the date of the accident and therefore, the
Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the
insured.
As per the copy of the driving licence issued in
favour of Mr.Gaddegowda, driver of the offending
lorry, produced by the learned counsel for the
claimants along with the memo, the driving licence
has been renewed and it is valid from 5.3.2007 to
4.3.2010 with an endorsement for driving transport
vehicle. The accident has occurred on 16.12.2009.
Therefore, it is very clear that as on the date of the
accident, the driver of the offending lorry was having
valid driving licence to drive the lorry. Therefore, the
Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the insured
and pay compensation to the claimants. Hence, there
is no error in the finding of the Tribunal.
11. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.
The judgment and award of the Tribunal is confirmed.
The amount in deposit is ordered to be
transferred to the Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DM
