Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Muddurangappa
2022 Latest Caselaw 13067 Kant

                             1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

                          BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

                  M.F.A.NO.5949/2014 (MV)

BETWEEN:

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
SRI SHARADA COMPLEX, I FLOOR,
OPP: KASRTC BUS STAND,
P.B. ROAD, CHITRADURGA-577 501.
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGIONAL MANAGER,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE, #44/45,
LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX,
RESIDENCY ROAD,
BANGALORE 560 025.
                                             ...APPELLANT

          (BY SRI A.N. KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     MUDDURANGAPPA,
       S/O BALAPPA,
       NOW AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
       R/O DODDABANAGERE VILLAGE,
       HULIKUNTE HOBLI, SIRA TALUK,
       TUMKUR DISTRICT-572137.

2.     SANJAY KUMAR,
       S/O D. AMBANNA,
       NOW AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
       MAHADEVI TRANSPORT,
       R/A SADHANA SADANA,
                                  2



       RAILWAY STATION ROAD,
       CHALLAKERE,
       CHITRADURGA DIST-577 522.
                                                ...RESPONDENTS

             (BY SRI H.B. NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R2,
                  R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

     THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.06.2014
PASSED IN MVC NO.630/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, AT SIRA, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.20,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

    THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                         JUDGMENT

Though this matter is listed for admission today, with the

consent of both the learned counsel it is taken up for final

disposal.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the

learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company

challenging the judgment and award dated 26.06.2014, passed

in M.V.C.No.630/2012, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and

Additional MACT, Sira ('the Tribunal' for short) questioning the

liability.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant Insurance

Company would vehemently contend that as on the date of the

accident there was no permit and the vehicle involved in the

accident is a bus.

5. The Apex Court in its judgment in the case of AMRIT

PAUL SINGH AND ANOTHER v. TATA AIG GENERAL

INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2018 SC

2662, has held that the offending vehicle had no permit.

Exceptions to necessity for permits under Section 66 of the

Motor Vehicles Act are to be pleaded and proved. It cannot be

taken aid of for seeking absolution from liability. Use of vehicle

in public place without permit is fundamental statutory

infraction. Pay and recover principle applicable. Insurer though

liable to pay compensation to claimants but entitled to recover

same from owner. In the case on hand, except the contention

that there was no permit, no other grounds are urged.

6. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is allowed.

(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 26.06.2014, passed in M.V.C.No.630/2012, is modified directing the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount with interest within six weeks from today and recover the same from the insured.

(iii) The amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.

(iv) The Registry is directed to transmit the records to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.

Sd/-

JUDGE

MD