The National Insurance Company vs B Somamma
2022 Latest Caselaw 9359 Kant

                         1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2022

                    BEFORE

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

          MFA No.3656 OF 2019(MV)

BETWEEN

THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED., NO.1576
1ST BUILDING, V.V.ROAD
MANDYA-571401.
ALSO AT NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE
REGIONAL OFFICE NO.144
SUBHARAM COMPLEX
2ND FLOOR, M.G.ROAD
BENGALURU-01
NOW REPRESENTED BY
ASST. MANAGER LEGAL
                                    ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI.ASHOK N PATIL)

AND

1 . B SOMAMMA
    W/O LATE BASAPPA
    AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
    R/O MASAGODU VILLAGE
    MASAGODU POST
                         2




     KASABA HOBLI
     SOMAVARAPET TALUK
     KODAGU DISTRICT-571236.

     PRESENT ADDRESS:
     R/O DUDUKANAHALLY VILLAGE
     AKKIHEBBALU HOBLI
     K.R.PET TLAUK
     MANDYA DISTRICT-571401.

2 . M.N. BASAVARAJU
    S/O M.K. NANJAPPA
    R/O SULIMALATHA VILLAGE
    VANAKODU POST, KASABA HOBLI
    SOMAVARAPET TALUK
    KODAGU DISTRICT-571236.
                               ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.H.T. VASANTH KUMAR, ADV. FOR R2:
R1 SERVED)

      THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV   ACT   AGAINST   THE JUDGMENT   AND AWARD
DATED: 20.2.19 PASSED IN MVC NO.1481/14 ON THE
FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, K R PET,
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1,66,000/- WITH
INTEREST @ 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION
TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION.


      THIS MFA COMING ON FOR     ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                   3




                           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 dated 20.2.2019 passed

by Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, K.R.Pet in MVC

1481/2014.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 29.9.2014 when the

claimant was proceeding on the left side of the road

near auto stand in Somavarpet town, at that time,

jeep bearing registration No.KA-12-M-4602 being

driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and

negligent manner, dashed to the claimant. 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 he 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 respondents

appeared through their respective counsel and filed

written statements in which the averments made in

the petition were denied.

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.Paramesh was examined as

through court commissioner as CW-1 and got

exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P.14 and

Ex.C-1 to 4. On behalf of the respondents, two

witnesses were examined as RWs-1 and 2 and got

exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R8. 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.166,000/- along with

interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and directed the

Insurance Company to deposit the compensation

amount along with interest with liberty to recover the

same from the owner of the offending vehicle. Being

aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

6. The learned counsel for the Insurance

Company has raised the following contentions:

Firstly, it is not in dispute that the driver of the

offending vehicle was not having valid and effective

driving licence as on the date of accident. Since the

insured has violated the policy conditions, the

Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation

to the claimant. Even though the Tribunal is justified

in exonerating the Insurance Company from liability

but it has erred in directing the Insurance Company to

pay compensation with liberty to recover the same

from the owner of the offending vehicle.

Secondly, considering the nature of injuries and

evidence of the parties, the overall compensation

awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. Further,

in view of the Division Bench decision of this in the

case of Ms.Joyeeta Bose and others -v-

Venkateshan.V and others (MFA 5896/2018 and

connected matters disposed of on 24.8.2020),

the interest granted by the Tribunal at the rate of 9%

p.a. on the compensation amount has to be reduced

to 6% p.a. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.

7. There is no representation for respondent

No.2, owner of the offending vehicle. Respondent

No.1, claimant is served and unrepresented.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant

and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

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.

As per wound certificate, the claimant has

sustained tenderness in left thigh and hip bone region

with restriction of movement of left lower limb. He has

examined the doctor as CW-1. Considering the

evidence of PW-1 and CW-1 and considering the

nature of injuries mentioned in the wound certificate,

the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal

under different heads is just and reasonable.

10. In respect of liability is concerned, the

Tribunal after considering the evidence of the parties

has given a clear finding that the driver of the

offending vehicle was not having valid driving licence

as on the date of accident and insured has violated

the policy conditions. The Tribunal has directed the

Insurance Company to pay compensation with liberty

to recover the same from the owner of the offending

vehicle. This finding of the Tribunal is not challenged

by the owner of the offending vehicle. Since the

insured has violated the policy conditions, the Tribunal

is justified in exonerating the Insurance Company

from liability. However, in view of the law laid down

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PAPPU

AND ORS. V. VINOD KUMAR LAMBA AND ANR. [AIR

2018 SC 592] the Insurance Company is liable to pay

compensation to the claimant at the first instance,

with liberty to the Insurance Company to recover the

same from the owner of the offending vehicle.

In view of the said decision of the Apex Court,

the Tribunal is justified in directing the Insurance

Company to pay compensation with liberty to recover

the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.

11. In respect of awarding interest on the

compensation is concerned, in view of the Division

Bench decision of this in the case of Ms.Joyeeta

Bose and others -v- Venkateshan.V and others

(MFA 5896/2018 and connected matters

disposed of on 24.8.2020), the interest granted by

the Tribunal at the rate of 9% p.a. on the

compensation amount is reduced to 6% p.a.

12. In the result, the appeal is allowed in

part. The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit

the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal

along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing

of the claim petition till the date of realization, within

a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy

of this judgment.

The Insurance Company is at liberty to recover

the said compensation amount from the owner of the

offending vehicle.

The amount in deposit is ordered to be

transferred to the Tribunal forthwith.

Sd/-

JUDGE

DM