Karnataka High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Smt.Anusuya on 29 June, 2022
Bench: Krishna S.Dixitpresided Byksdj
-1-
MFA No. 20557 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
MFA NO. 20557 OF 2010 (MV)
BETWEEN:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
GADAG BRANCH, ROTARY CIRCLE, GADAG,
REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER
P.M.KULKARNI
DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
LEA COMPLEX, DHARWAD.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. N. R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. ANUSUYA
W/O MALLAPPA BALIGER,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
2. SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR
S/O MALLAPPA BALIGER,
Digitally
signed by
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
ROHAN
HADIMANI T
ROHAN
HADIMANI Location:
T
DHARWAD
Date:
2022.07.02
3. KUM. VEENA
11:08:04
+0530
D/O. MALLAPPA BALIGER,
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS,
SINCE MINOR, REP BY
HER MOTHER
THE FIRST RESPONDENT
HEREIN.
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF GADAG.
-2-
MFA No. 20557 of 2010
4. SRI. SRINIVASA, MAJOR
S/O BISHMASHA BAKALE,
R/O DOLLINAVAR ONI,
GAJENDRAGAD TALUK: RON.
(OWNER OF MARUTI GIPSAY NO.CAR-9505).
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHESH WODEYAR, ADV. FOR R1 & R2;
R3 IS MINOR REP/BY R1;
SRI. ROHIT S.PATIL, ADV. FOR R4)
THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF THE M.V.ACT,
AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DATED: 07-10-
2009, PASSED IN MVC NO.177/2004, ON THE FILE OF THE
PRESIDING OFFICER , FAST TRACK COURT, GADAG,
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.7,65,848/- ALONG
WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE
OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY. THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appellant-Insurer is knocking at the doors of
appellate Court for assailing the Judgment & Award
dated 07.10.2009 rendered by the Additional MACT,
Gadag whereby the claim in MVC No.177/2004 having
been favoured a compensation of Rs.7,65,848/- with
MFA No. 20557 of 2010
interest at the rate of 6% p.a., has been awarded
subject to usual condition of apportionment and bank
deposit.
2. After service of notice, claimants have
entered appearance through their learned counsel;
similarly the owner of insured vehicle is also
represented by a private advocate. Learned Advocates
appearing for these respondents vehemently oppose
the appeal making submissions in justification of
impugned Judgment & Award and the reasons on
which they have been structured.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and having perused the TCR, this Court is
inclined to grant indulgence in the matter on a short
ground namely the insurance policies in question
which are marked at Exs.R3 and R4 are only a "Act
Policies" i.e., "Liability Only Policy". There is absolutely
no dispute as to the kind of policy.
MFA No. 20557 of 2010
4. Learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for
the insurance company heavily banks upon a decision
of the Apex Court in JAGATAR SINGH ALIAS JAGDEV
SINGH VS. SANJEEV KUMAR AND OTHERS (2019) 1
SCC (CIV) 152 and a Division Bench judgment of this
Court in THE BRANCH MANAGER, NEW INDIA
ASSURANCE CO. LTD., VS. MAHADEV PANDURANG
PATIL AND ANOTHER ILR 2011 KAR 850, in support
of his submission that the "Liability Only Policy" would
not cover the risk of inmates of the car who do not
happen to be 'Third Parties'. There is force in this
submission.
5. The vehement contention of the learned
counsel for the claimants that a learned Single Judge
of this Court in MFA No.22970/2019 (MV) between
BALESH BASAVANNEPPA HATTARAKI VS. DIVISION
MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., disposed
off on 06.11.2015 has held that even persons who do
not happen to be third parties, being the inmates of
MFA No. 20557 of 2010
the car are also entitled to have their risk covered is
difficult to agree with when the case of appellant is
supported by a decision of Apex Court and also a
decision of the Division Bench of this Court. His
reliance on a decision of Andra Pradesh High Court
between THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., VS.
MEDISETTY VENKATALASHMI in M.A.C.A.
No.1339/2006 decided on 23.03.2022 also does not
come to his rescue, the fact matrix of the case being
different from the one involved herein.
In the above circumstances, this appeal
succeeds; the liability imposed on the appellant-
Insurer is dislodged; however, the liability levied on
the owner of insured vehicle shall continue; it is open
to the claimants to execute the award against the
owner of the vehicle.
The owner of the offending vehicle shall not
alienate or encumber any of his properties movable or
immovable, house or land till the award is satisfied.
MFA No. 20557 of 2010
The amount in deposit shall be refunded to the
appellant, forthwith.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RH
