Hdfc Insurance Company Limited vs A S Panish
2022 Latest Caselaw 1891 Kant

                          1


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

                        BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT

               MFA No. 9531/2011 (MV)


BETWEEN
HDFC INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
BANGALORE, NOW KNOWN AS
HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED, I FLOOR, H.M.GENEVA HOUSE
CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE-52,
BY ITS MANAGER (LEGAL)
                                   ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. H.S.LINGARAJ ADVOCATE)

AND
1.     A.S.PANISH,
       AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
       S/O SATCHIDANANDA GUPTA,
       R/O COMMERCIAL STREET, JANNAPURA
       BHADRAVATHI AND ALSO AT NO.7
       50/D, 9TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN
       NAGARABHAVI II STAGE, BANGALORE
       PIN-560 001

2.     SHYAMALA SHASTRY
       AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
       S/O SUBBARAO
       NO.1, GURUMANTAPA STREET, ULSOOR
       BANGALORE-560 001.
                               2


                                            ...RESPONDENTS
(SRI. MANJUNATHA PATTANASHETTY ADV., FOR R-1)
SRI. MAHESH SHETTY ADV., FOR R-2)

      MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.05.2011 PASSED IN
MVC NO. 78/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING
OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, ADDITIONAL MACT,
BHADRAVATHI,    AWARDING    A   COMPENSATION  OF
Rs.1,00,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A., FROM THE
DATE OF ORDER TILL RELIZATION AND ETC.,

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                        JUDGMENT

This appeal is at the instance of the Insurance

Company calling in question the correctness of the

judgment and award dated 19.05.2011 in MVC No.78/2006

passed by the Fast Track and Addl. M.A.C.T., Bhadravathi.

2. In view of the nature of the contention raised in

this appeal, detailed reference to the fact of the case is not

necessary which in any case has been dealt with in the

judgment and award impugned herein in great detail.

3. Substantial contention urged by learned counsel,

Sri.H.S.Lingaraj on behalf of insurance company is that,

since the claimant himself was driving the vehicle which is

insured with the appellant and the charge sheet is also

filed against him and in view of the decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Ramkhiladi Vs. United

India Insurance Company reported in AIR 2020 SC

527 and personal accident was covered to the extent of

Rs.1,00,000/-, learned Tribunal was not right in awarding

interest on the same and therefore, the said portion of the

award is liable to be set aside.

4. After perusing the records and impugned

judgment and award, it is clear that the insured vehicle

was being driven by the claimant himself and claim

petition was filed under Section 166 of M.V. Act and the

policy covered the risk of personal accident only to the

extent of Rs.1,00,000/- without any further liability to pay

interest on the same.

5. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramkhiladi case

(Supra) has observed as follows:

"5.8 However, at the same time, even as per the contract of insurance, in case of personal accident the owner-driver is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. Therefore, the deceased, as observed hereinabove, who would be in the shoes of the owner shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, even as per the contract of insurance. However, it is the case on behalf of the original claimants that there is an amendment to the 2nd Schedule and a fixed amount of Rs.5,00,000/- has been specified in case of death and therefore the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.5,00,000/-. The same cannot be accepted. In the present case, the accident took place in the year 2006 and even in the judgment and award was passed by the learned Tribunal in the year 2009, and the impugned Judgment and Order has been passed by the High Court in 10.05.2018 i.e., much prior to the amendment in the 2nd Schedule. In the facts and circumstance of the present case, the claimants shall not be entitled to the benefit of the amendment to the 2nd Schedule. At the same time, as observed hereinabove, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- as per the terms of the contract of insurance, the driver being in the shoes of the owner of the vehicle."

6. Accordingly, in view of the contract of

insurance, appellant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-

to the claimant and the direction in the judgment and

award to pay interest is liable to be set aside.

7. The appeal is allowed to the said extent by

setting aside the direction to pay the interest at the rate of

6% per annum on the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.

8. The records shall be transmitted to the learned

MACT along with amount in-deposit forthwith.

Sd/-

JUDGE

JS/NM