Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Miss. Chandra Mani on 29 November, 2021
Bench: E.S.Indiresh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
M.F.A. NO.6732/2014 (MV)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISION MANAGER,
RELIANCE GIC LTD.,
GROUND FLOOR, SRI RAM ARCADE,
OPP: HEAD POST OFFICE,
UDUPI.
NOW REP. ITS
THE LEGAL MANAGER,
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE,
5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING,
NO.28, M.G. ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI PRADEEP B, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MISS. CHANDRA MANI,
D/O K.GOPAL,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT RANGANATHA SHENOY COMPOUND,
NEAR P.P. COLLEGE,
UDUPI-576 101.
2. MANJUNATHA M.C.,
S/O CHOWDASYA,
2
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
R/AT NEAR HANUMAN GARAGE,
CHITPADY,
UDUPI-576 101.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI NAGARAJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED 18.08.2014 PASSED IN
MVC NO.799/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, UDUPI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
RS.1,37,700/- WITH INTEREST AT 8% P.A. FROM THE
DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the Insurance
Company challenging the judgment and award dated
18.08.2014 passed in MVC No.799/2011 on the file of
Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, and
Principal Senior Civil Judge, Udupi, (for short,
hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'), on the ground of
liability.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in
this appeal shall be referred to in terms of their status
and ranking before the Tribunal.
3. Facts in brief are that, on 22.12.2009 at
about 12.45 pm, the claimant met with an accident
while she was returning from the Venkataramana
Temple, Tenkapet, Udupi. She was hit by the rider of
Hero Honda Splendor Bike bearing registration No. KA-
51-Q-4541 and as such, the claimant filed MVC
No.799/2011 on the file of the Tribunal seeking
compensation.
4. After service of summons, respondents
entered appearance and filed written statement
denying the averments made in the claim petition. On
the basis of the pleadings on record, the Tribunal has
formulated issues for its consideration. In order to
establish the case, claimant examined herself as PW1
and examined the Doctor as PW2 and got marked 13
documents as Exs.P1 to P13. On the other hand,
respondents examined one witness as RW1 and
produced two documents as Exs.R1 and R2.
5. The Tribunal, after considering the material
on record, by its judgment and award dated
18.08.2014 allowed the claim petition in-part and
awarded compensation of Rs.1,37,700/- with interest
at 8% p.a from the date of the petition till realisation.
Being aggrieved by the same, appellant/Insurance
Company has come out with this present appeal
challenging liability fastened on it.
6. Heard Sri Pradeep.B, learned counsel
appearing for appellant-Insurance Company and
Sri.Nagaraj Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-claimant.
7. Sri. Pradeep. B, learned counsel for the
appellant-Insurance Company contended that the
Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that rider of the
motorcycle was having Learner's Licence (for short
'LLR') to ride a Two-wheeler and therefore, there is
violation of Section 3(1) of the Central Motor Vehicles
Rules, 1989. Accordingly, he submitted that there is
violation of the policy conditions and as such, he
sought to exonerate the Insurance Company from its
liability to satisfy the claim amount awarded by the
Tribunal in favour of claimant. Sri. Pradeep also
submitted that the rate of interest awarded by the
Tribunal is also on the higher side and requires to be
modified in this appeal.
8. Sri Nagaraja Hegde, learned counsel for the
respondent-claimant submitted that it is not in dispute
that rider of the motorcycle had LLR as on the date of
accident, however, he has refuted the contention
raised by Sri.Pradeep.B, learned counsel by placing
reliance on judgment dated 21.08.2021 passed by this
Court in the case of the Senior Divisional Manager,
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Jyotiba
Appaji Shigate in MFA No.20655/2011 reported in
LAWS(KAR)2019 8 96 and contended that even if
the rider of the motorcycle is having LLR, the
Insurance Company be made liable to indemnify the
insured.
9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties and gone through the finding recorded by the
Tribunal and perused the records. It is not in dispute
that the claimant sustained injuries in a road traffic
accident occurred on 22.12.2009. The only contention
raised by the Insurance Company is that when the
rider of two-wheeler possessed only LLR, then it is
mandatory to have an instructor with her and also it is
compulsory to display 'L' Board on the vehicle. If the
said conditions are not complied with, then it will
clearly amount to violation of Rule 3 (b) of Central
Motor Vehicles Rule, 1989 and also condition of
Insurance Policy. However, the factual aspects in the
case of Jyotiba, stated supra, would answer the
contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant-
Insurance Company. Following the law declared by this
court in the Jyotiba's case, I do not find any
acceptable ground to interfere with the judgment and
award made by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal
filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed insofar
as liability is concerned. However, I find force in the
submission made by Sri. Pradeep.B., that the interest
rate awarded by the Tribunal calls for interference.
This court, in a catena of decisions, considered
prevailing interest rate of Banks and has awarded
interest at 6% per annum, and to maintain the
consistency, I am of the view that rate of interest
awarded by the Tribunal shall be reduced to 6% p.a.,
accordingly, same is reduced to 6% p.a.
Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SB
