Karnataka High Court
Reliance General Insurance vs K.K. Veerendra Kumar @Komarappa on 12 January, 2021
Author: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.8444 OF 2013 (MV)
BETWEEN:
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
BRANCH OFFICE: MYSORE TRADE CENTER,
1 FLOOR, L-36/D,
IN FRONT OF KSRTC BUS STAND,
MYSORE, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY
ITS REGIONAL OFFICE: NO.28, 5TH FLOOR,
EAST WING, CENTENARY BUILDING,
M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001
BY ITS MANAGER (LEGAL) ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. LINGARAJ H S, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. K.K. VEERENDRA KUMAR @ KOMARAPPA
NOW AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
KITHOOR VILLAGE,
KODLIPETE HOBLI-571231
SOMWARPETE TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT.
2. K.P.SOMASHEKARA
NOW AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
S/O LATE PUTASWAMY,
R/AT KYATHANAHALLI VILLAGE,
SHANIVARASANTHE HOBLI-571235
SOMWARPETE TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T RAJARAM, ADVOCATE FOR R1
R2 - SERVED, UNREPRESENTED)
2
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.04.2013
PASSED IN MVC NO.140/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE AD-HOC
DISTRICT JUDGE, PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT,
KODAGU, MADIKERI, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF
RS.8,00,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION.
THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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 Insurance Company
being aggrieved by the judgment dated 09.04.2013
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 27.06.2012 at about 7-00
p.m., when the claimant was proceeding on Auto-
Rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-12/A-4838 being
driven by its driver, on Honnekoppalu Junction at a
high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, and
the said Auto was turtled. 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 on the ground that he was aged about
37 years and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by
doing business. It was pleaded that he 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, even though
respondent No.1 appeared through his counsel but not
filed objection statement, respondent No.2 appeared
through its counsel and filed detailed objection in
which the averments made in the petition were denied
which are against its interest stating that the claimant
is the owner of the Auto-Rickshaw and he is not the
third party. The Tribunal has jurisdiction only to
entertain the 3rd party. It was pleaded that the
petition is also misconceived, as under Section 166 of
MV Act only third party claims can be preferred. The
age, income of the claimant and injuries sustained by
the claimant, medical expenses incurred by the
claimant 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.
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 Dr.Gangu Hiral S., as PW-2
and got exhibited 16 documents namely Ex.P1 to
Ex.P16. On behalf of the respondents, neither
examined any witness nor marked any documents.
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.1,00,000/- along with
interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed Insurance
Company to deposit compensation amount along with
interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.
6. The learned counsel for the Insurance
Company has raised the following contentions.
Firstly, the injured is an insured, the Insurance
Company is not liable to pay compensation. If he has
grievance he has a remedy before the consumer
forum. The claim petition filed by the claimant is not
maintainable. The Tribunal has not considered the
above said facts.
Secondly, since the petition itself is not
maintainable, the judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal is unsustainable. Hence, he sought for
allowing the appeal.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for
the claimant has raised the following contentions.
Firstly, there is no bar for filing claim petition
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Secondly, since the additional premium has been
paid for coverage of personal accident, the Tribunal
after considering the materials available on record,
has rightly granted compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-
with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Hence, he sought
for dismissal of the appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused judgment and award of the Tribunal.
9. It is not in dispute that claimant has
suffered injuries in a road traffic accident occurred on
27.06.2012 due to rash and negligent driving of Auto-
Rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-12/A-4838 by its driver.
The vehicle is covered by insurance policy, and
also claimant was an insured and he has paid
additional premium for personal accident. Therefore,
the claim petition filed by the claimant under Section
166 of the M.V. Act is maintainable. The Tribunal has
rightly held that there is an additional premium paid
for coverage of personal accident. The Insurance
Company is liable to pay compensation of
Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.
There is no error in judgment and award passed by
the Tribunal. Hence, I decline to interfere with the
judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the appeal, I.A.No.2/2013
does not survive for consideration.
Amount in deposit before this Court shall be
transferred to the Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MKM
