Karnataka High Court
B R Sadananda vs B M Chandra on 20 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:46649
MFA No. 467 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 467 OF 2017 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
B R SADANANDA,
S/O RAJU @ RAJANNA,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
R/AT HALEBUDANUR VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, MANDYA
TALUK & DISTRICT - 571 401.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K.L. SREENIVAS, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. B M CHANDRA,
S/O LATE B.K. MADAPPA,
AGE: MAJOR,
Digitally R/AT HALEBUDANUR VILLAGE,
signed by JAI
JYOTHI J KASAB HOBLI, MANDYA
Location: TALUK AND DISTRICT - 571 401.
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
2. THE ORINETAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
M.H.BORAIAH BUILDING, V.V.ROAD,
MANDYA - 571 401,
REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER.
3. K.N. GURUSWAMY,
S/O NAGAIAH, AGE: MAJOR
R/AT KOMMERAHALLI,
KASABA HOBLI, MANDYA
TALUK & DISTRICT - 571 401.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:46649
MFA No. 467 of 2017
4. IFFCO - TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
OPP DDPI OFFICE, K R ROAD,
C/O KACARD BANK, VIDHYA NAGAR,
MANDYA - 571 401,
REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAGADEESH H.T, ADVOCATE;
SRI. JANARDHANA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. B.C. SHIVANNA GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R4
VIDE ORDER DATED 19.04.2023 NOTICE TO R3 IS
DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.09.2016 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1196/14 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE & CJM, MANDYA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the award passed in
M.V.C.No.1196/2014 dated 20.09.2016 by the I Addl.
Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mandya, whereby the Tribunal
had held that the owner of the vehicle alone is liable to
pay the compensation and not the Insurance Company,
the claimant is before this Court.
NC: 2023:KHC:46649
2. According to the claimant, on 23.03.2014, he was
travelling in a goods auto as a cleaner. The driver of the
goods auto drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent
manner and hit the auto from behind after hitting a tree.
The claimant had sustained as many as four fractures and
one lacerated wound. The police have filed the charge
sheet against the driver of the goods auto in which the
claimant was travelling as a cleaner.
3. The Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the
owner cum driver of the goods auto is at fault and as the
charge sheet is filed against him, the owner alone is liable
to pay the compensation and granted compensation of an
amount of Rs.1,02,000/- which has to be paid by the
owner alone.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant
submits that the claimant is a third party to the insurance
policy. The observation of the Court below might have
been right if the owner himself is the claimant as he
himself is the tortfeasor. But he is the cleaner in the said
NC: 2023:KHC:46649
goods auto and third party to the insurance policy and the
Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance
Company submits that the Court below had rightly
exonerated the Insurance Company as the charge sheet is
filed against the owner cum driver of the vehicle.
6. Having heard the learned counsel on either side,
perused the entire material on record. The Court below
went wrong in observing that as the driver cum owner of
the vehicle is at fault, the amount has to be paid by the
owner and not the insured. In this case, the claimant is a
third party, there is a valid insurance policy as on the date
of accident and because of the negligence on the part of
the driver of the goods auto the claimant had sustained
injuries. In such case, the Insurance Company is liable to
pay the compensation.
7. Accordingly, the appeal of the claimant is
allowed-in-part holding that respondent No.2 -
NC: 2023:KHC:46649
Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation of
an amount of Rs.1,02,000/-.
i. The respondent No.2 - Insurance Company
shall deposit the amount within a period of
eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of
the judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is
entitled to withdraw the entire amount without
furnishing any security.
ii. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court
Records to the Tribunal, along with certified
copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith
without any delay.
iii. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
SD/-
JUDGE
MEG
CT: BHK
