The Manager Reliance General ... vs Dundappa S/O Lagamanna Pujari And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9505 Kant

                            1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                 KALABURAGI BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2022

                        BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR


               MFA No.30405/2013 (MV)

BETWEEN:

THE MANAGER
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
ASIAN PLAZA, OPP: SYNDICATE BANK,
STATION ROAD, GULBARGA,
PRESENTLY REPRESENTED BY ITS
DEPUTY MANAGER, LEGAL
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
HUBLI-586101.
                                           ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.RAHUL R ASTURE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     DUNDAPPA S/O LAGAMANNA PUJARI
       AGED: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
       R/O WADDARGALLI, BRAHMAPUR,
       GULBARGA-585102.

2.     BANDA NAWAZ S/O PATAN MIYA
       R/O GOGI, TQ.SHAHAPUR,
       DIST. GULBARGA-585309.
                                           RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.JAYANANDAYYA, ADV. FOR R1
NOTICE TO R2 -HELD SUFFICIENT)
                             2



     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 21.11.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.876/2010
BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT, GULBARGA
AND EXONERATE THE INSURANCE COMPANY FROM LIABILIATY
AND ETC.

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

                      JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the Appellant-Insurance

Company under Section 173(1) of M.V.Act,

challenging the judgment and award dated

21.11.2012 passed in MVC No.876/2010 by the Prl.

Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Gulbarga on the ground of

liability.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are

referred with the ranks occupied by them before the

Tribunal.

3. The factual matrix leading to the case are

that on 23.04.2010 at about 10.30 a.m., when the

petitioner was traveling in tom-tom bearing

registration No.KA-32/93 from Kurnalli bus stand to

go to Jewargi, near the land of one Saheb Gouda

Dalapati, the driver of the said tom tom drove it in a

rash and negligent manner with high speed

endangering to human life and met with an accident.

As a result, the petitioner suffered injuries. Hence, he

has filed a claim petition under Section 166 of

M.V.Act, seeking compensation.

4. After appreciating the oral and

documentary evidence, the tribunal has awarded the

total compensation of Rs.1,03,000/- with interest @

6% p.a. to the petitioner by fastening the liability on

respondent Nos.1 and 2.

5. Being aggrieved by the award of the

tribunal, the appellant-Insurance Company has filed

this appeal.

6. Heard the arguments advanced by the

learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company

and learned counsel for respondent No.1/petitioner.

Perused the records.

7. The main contention of the learned counsel

for the appellant-Insurance Company is that the

accident has occurred on 23.04.2010, but the vehicle

was registered on 19.07.2010 and hence as on the

date of the accident, the vehicle was not at all

registered and there is breach of policy conditions.

Hence, he would contend that the Insurance Company

is not liable to pay compensation.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the

respondent No.1/petitioner would support the

judgment and award passed by the tribunal and

contend that the premium was collected by the

Insurance Company and now the Insurance Company

cannot seek absolving from the liability to pay

compensation.

9. Having heard the arguments and perusing

the records, it is evident that the accident took place

on 23.04.2010 and the vehicle was registered on

19.07.2010. It is relevant to note here that the

insurance was covered from 12.04.2010 itself. If the

vehicle was not registered after the insurance being

taken, it was the duty of the Insurance Company to

issue notice to the petitioner and it should have

cancelled the policy. But without taking any recourse,

the Insurance Company has simply collected the

premium in a hurry to expand the business and now

they are taking a lame excuse.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has

placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh Vs.

New India Assurance Company Ltd., in SLP (Civil)

No.26308/2013, but the fact and circumstances of the

said case are entirely different and in the said case

the vehicle was temporarily registered and after the

expiry of temporary registration, the vehicle met with

an accident. But in the instant case, after taking the

policy, the vehicle was not registered and the

Insurance Company has not taken any steps to cancel

the policy and there is no dispute regarding the

quantum. Considering, these facts and circumstances,

the liability of the Insurance Company cannot be

absolved. However, considering the breach of policy

conditions, the Insurance Company is liable to pay

compensation and recover it from the

owner/respondent No.1 in respect of breach of permit

conditions. Hence, the appeal needs to be allowed in

part.

11. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the

following;

ORDER

(a) The appeal is allowed in part.

(b) The judgment and award passed by

the tribunal is confirmed.

(c) However, the respondent No.2-

Insurance Company is directed to pay

compensation with liberty to recover

the same from respondent

No.1/owner by modifying the award

to this extent.

(d) The amount in deposit shall be

transmitted to the tribunal forthwith.

Sd/-

JUDGE

msr