Divisional Manager vs Mr Yallappa
2022 Latest Caselaw 3585 Kant

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                DHARWAD BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 3 R D DAY OF MARCH, 2022
                             BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S. SANJAY GOWDA

                MFA No.20878/2010 (MV-D)
Between:
Divisional Manager,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Divisional Office, "Sita Smruti",
IInd Floor, Maruti Galli, Belgaum.                  ... Appellant
(By ShriC.V. Angadi, Advocate)

And:
1.     Mr. Yallappa S/o. Doddayallappa Naik,
       Age 46 years, OCc: Nil,
       R/o.: Nandgad, Tq.: Khanapur,
       Dist.: Belgaum.
2.     Smt. Ningawwa W/o. Yallappa Naik,
       Age 43 years, Occ: Household work,
       R/o.: Nandgad, Tq.: Khanapur,
       Dist.: Belgaum.
3.     Mr. Suresh Yallappa Naik,
       Age major, Occ: Business,
       R/o.: Nandgad, Tq.: Khanapur,
       Dist.: Belgaum. (Owner of Motorcycle
       No.KA-22/Y-8531)                             ... Respondents
(By Shri Harish S.Maigur, Advocate for C/R1 & R2;
 Respondent No.3 - served & unrepresented)

      This MFA is filed under Section 17 3(1) of M.V. Act,
1988 against the judgment an d award da ted 31. 11.20 09,
passed in MVC No.14 3/2009 on the file of the Presiding
Officer, Fast Track Court- I & Member, Addl. MACT ,
B elgaum, awa rding the compensation of Rs.3,64,500/-
with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the da te of
petition till the date of actual deposit.
                                    :2:



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

                              JUDGMENT

This is an appeal by the appellant - Insurance

Comp any arising out of a claim made by the mother

and father in respect of the accid ent, which occurred

on 15.01.2009 which had resulted in the death of

their son Sanju Naik. The claim was under Section

163(A) of the M.V. Act.

2. It is p ertinent to state here that the p illion

rider of the motorcycle, Yallapp a Parashuram

Bid arbhavi had also preferred a claim petition in MVC

No.144/2009 in resp ect of the injuries suffered by

him as a result of the accident.

3. The Tribunal, for the death of Sanju Naik

awarded compensation of Rs.3,64,500/- and a sum of

Rs.3,000/- for the injuries suffered by the pillion

rider-Yallapp a Parashuram Bid arb havi. The

comp ensation awarded to the claimants and the

pillion rid er, have been accepted by them, inasmuch

as, no app eal has been preferred by them.

4. The main ground on which this appeal was

preferred was that the Insurance Comp any was not

liable for compensation to the rid er of the motorcycle

who was himself negligent und er Section 163(A) of

the M.V. Act. This ground is no long er availab le in

view of the d ecision rend ered in the case of United

India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Sunil Kumar and

another reported in AIR 2017 SC 5710.

5. The other arg ument advanced by the

Insurance Comp any is that the policy in question was

only a liab ility policy and therefore the Insurance

Comp any did not have any liab ility. In resp ect of the

rider of the motorcycle though a vag ue plea

reg arding the liab ility was taken in the objections,

nevertheless, the Insurance Comp any has accepted

its liab ility in respect of the pillion rider and has

satisfied the award of Rs.3,000/-.

6. Learned counsel for the Insurance

Comp any contends that the said sum was satisfied

only b ecause the claim was very small and the appeal

filed against the claim had been d ismissed .

7. It would be a glaring contrad iction if the

Insurance Comp any accepts the liab ility of the pillion

rider, but denies the liab ility of the rid er of the

motorcycle merely on the g round that the sums

awarded were high. In my view, in the p eculiar facts

of this particular case that the Insurance Company

has satisfied the liab ility of the pillion rider, without

going to the question of actual liab ility of the

Insurance Comp any, the said argument is required to

be rejected.

8. In other words, this app eal is liable to b e

dismissed having regard to the fact that the

Insurance Company has accep ted the liability in

resp ect of the award mad e in favour of the pillion

rider.

9. The arg ument of the learned counsel that

the Insurance Comp any satisfied the award in resp ect

of the pillion rider only because of the dismissal of

the appeal in MFA No.20879/2010 on 16.06.2010

cannot also b e accepted. Admittedly, the said appeal

was d ismissed as not being maintainab le in view of

the compensation being less than Rs.10,000/-. It was

open for the Insurance Comp any to prefer a writ

petition if the appeal was held to be not

maintainab le. Having not done so, the Insurance

Comp any has thereby accep ted the liab ility imposed

in respect of the pillion rider.

10. As stated earlier, since the Insurance

Comp any has satisfied the liab ility of the pillion

rider, in the peculiar facts of this case, the

contention that they are not liable to satisfy the

comp ensation awarded for the death of the

motorcycle rider cannot b e accepted . The appeal is

accord ing ly dismissed.

The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to

the Trib unal for disbursement in accord ing with the

award.

In view of the d ismissal of the app eal,

Misc.Cvl.No.102745/2010 filed for stay does not

survive for consideration and the same stands

rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE Vnp*