Reliance General Insurance Co. ... vs Smt. Sannamma
2022 Latest Caselaw 8440 Kant

                             1



   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2022

                         BEFORE

    THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

               MFA No.9312 OF 2018 (MV)

BETWEEN:

Reliance General
Insurance Co. Ltd.,
1st Floor, Mysore Trade Centre,
Opposite KSRTC Bus stand,
Mysore,
Rep. by its Regional Manager,
Reliance General Insurance Co. ltd.,
5th Floor, #26, centenary Building,
MG Road, Bangalore.                       ... Appellant

(By Sri.D.Vijayakumar., Advocate)

AND:

1. Smt. Sannamma
   W/o Sri.Thimma Shetty K.V.,
   Aged about 68 years,
   R/at #125, Second Main Road,
   Kumbara Koppalu,
   Mysore - 570 002.

2. Sri. Girish.B.C.,
   S/o B.N.Chandra Shekaraiah,
   Aged about 47 years,
   R/at #577, 14th Main,
   Saraswathipuram,
   Mysore - 570 009.
                                2



3. Smt. B.C.Meera,
   W/o Sri. Venkataravanappa,
   Aged about 58 years,
   R/at #508/B, 14th Main,
   Saraswathipuram,
   Mysore - 570 009.                         ... Respondents

(By Sri.B. Keshava Murthy, Advocate for R1;
  Notice to R2 & R3 served but unrepresented)

      This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act,
against the Judgment and Award dated 19.06.2018 passed
in MVC No.1180/2015 on the file of the Judge, Additional
Court of Small Causes, MACT, Mysuru awarding
compensation of Rs.35,000/- along with interest at the
rate of 9% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization.

      This MFA, coming on for admission, this day, this
Court, delivered the following:

                      JUDGMENT

This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the

Act') has been filed by the Insurance Company being

aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated

19.06.2018 passed by the MACT, Mysuru in MVC

No.1180/2015.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 30.11.2014 at about 4.30

p.m. the claimant was proceeding as a pillion rider in

the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-09/HB-

2483 towards her home on KRS double road. When

they reached near Subramanyaswamy temple, at that

time, Maruthi car bearing registration No.KA-02/N-

3057 being driven by its driver at a high speed and in

a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the

motorcycle. 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 she 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.3

appeared through counsel and filed written statement

in which the averments made in the petition were

denied. The age, avocation and income of the

claimant and the medical expenses are 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 rider of the motorcycle. It was further pleaded

that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have

valid driving licence as on the date of the accident. It

was further pleaded that the liability is subject to

terms and conditions of the policy. 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 Nos.1 and 2 did not appear

before the Tribunal inspite of service of notice and

were placed ex-parte.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,

the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter

recorded the evidence. The claimant herself was

examined as PW-1 and got exhibited documents

namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P20. On behalf of the

respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 and

got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R3. 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 global compensation of Rs.35,000/- 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 claimant has not

produced the endorsed copy of the proposal form.

Ex.P16 is only a proposal form, it is not a valid

insurance policy. Therefore, Insurance Company is

not liable to pay the compensation, the Tribunal has

erred in fastening the liability on the Insurance

Company. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel

appearing for the claimant has contended that the

claimant has produced Ex.P16 proposal form and the

same has been marked and it has not been objected

and it is not the case of the Insurance Company that

they have not issued this form. Therefore, the

Tribunal, after considering the evidence of the parties

and materials available on record has rightly held that

the Insurance Company is liable to pay the

compensation. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the

appeal.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties

and perused the records.

9. It is not in dispute that the claimant has

sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred

due to rash and negligent driving of the offending

vehicle by its driver.

10. In respect of the contention raised by the

Insurance Company the claimant has produced Ex.P16

- Proposal-cum-Acknowledgement slip-Motor Package

Policy. In that, all the particulars of the policy has

been mentioned and the said document has been

marked without any objection from the Insurance

Company. The Insurance Company has not placed

any materials to show that they have not issued the

policy or rejected the policy to the offending vehicle.

Under these circumstances, the Tribunal is justified in

holding that the Insurance Company is liable to pay

the compensation Therefore, there is no error in the

judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

The quantum of compensation awarded by the

Tribunal is also just and reasonable.

I decline to interfere with the judgment and

award passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, appeal is

dismissed.

The amount in deposit is ordered to be

transferred to the Tribunal forthwith.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Cm/-