Karnataka High Court
Smt. Priya @ Priya Rajkumar Mehta vs M. Srinivas on 7 December, 2023
Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:44430
MFA No. 4927 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4927 OF 2020 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. PRIYA @ PRIYA RAJKUMAR MEHTA
W/O RAJKUMAR MEHTA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
2. MANALI RAJKUMAR MEHTA
D/O RAJKUMAR MEHTA
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
3. SUBHASCHANDRA JIVARAJ MEHTA
S/O JIVARAJ MEHATA
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS
4. RAYAN SUBHASH MEHTA
W/O SUBHASHCANDRA JIVARAJ MEHATE
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
Digitally signed ALL ARE R/AT 18 IST FLOOR
by
DHANALAKSHMI 24TH MAIN ROAD, 50 FEET ROAD
MURTHY GIRINAGAR, BENGALURU-560003
Location: High ...APPELLANTS
Court of
Karnataka
(BY SRI. GURUDEV PRASAD K T.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M. SRINIVAS
S/O P MUNIYAPPA
NO.689 NEAR GANESHA TEMPLE
THIGALARAPALYA, HOODI VILLAGE
MAHADEVAPURA
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:44430
MFA No. 4927 of 2020
BENGALURU-560 048
2. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL
ISURANCE CO.LTD.,
BY ITS MANAGER
NO.121 THE ESTATE BUILDING
9TH FLOOR DICKENSON ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.PRADEEP B, ADVOCATE FOR R2:
NOTICE TO R1 SERVED & UNREPRESENED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION.173(1) OF MV ACT,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:02.03.2020
PASSED IN MVC NO.4711/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XV
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXIII ACMM,
MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-19), 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
This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for
short) has been filed by the claimants being aggrieved by
the judgment dated 02.03.2020 passed by the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal & XV Addl. Judge, SCCH-19,
Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru (for short 'the Tribunal') in
MVC No.4722/2019.
NC: 2023:KHC:44430
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 11.07.2019 at about 12.00 p.m.
the deceased Rajkumar Mehta was proceeding on a
motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-05/HS-2867 on
Vydehi - ITPL main road. When he reached near Big
Bazaar towards Vydehi, at that time, a crane bearing
registration No.NL-02/L-2464 which was being driven in a
rash and negligent manner, dashed against the vehicle of
the deceased. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the
deceased fell down, sustained grievous injuries and
succumbed to the injuries at the hospital.
3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166
of the Act seeking compensation for the death of the
deceased along with interest.
4. On service of summons, the respondent No.2
appeared through counsel and filed written statement in
which the averments made in the petition were denied.
The age, occupation and income of the deceased are
denied. It was pleaded that the accident was due to the
rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the
NC: 2023:KHC:44430
deceased himself. It was further pleaded that the driver of
the offending vehicle did not possess valid driving licence
as on the date of the accident. It was further pleaded that
the liability is subject to terms and conditions of the policy.
It was further pleaded that the quantum of compensation
claimed by the claimants is exorbitant. Hence, he sought
for dismissal of the petition. The respondent No.1 did not
appear before the Tribunal inspite of service of notice and
hence was placed ex-parte.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the
Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded
the evidence. The claimants, in order to prove their case,
examined claimant No.1 as PW-1 and another witness as
PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to
Ex.P28. On behalf of respondents, two witnesses were
examined as RW-1 and RW-2 and got exhibited documents
namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R6. The Claims Tribunal, by the
impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took
place on account of rash and negligent driving of the
offending vehicle by its driver, as a result of which, the
NC: 2023:KHC:44430
deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries.
The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to
a compensation of Rs.19,16,000/- along with interest at
the rate of 6% p.a. and since the driver was not holding
proper and valid endorsement along with driving licence to
operate crane machinery, directed the owner of the
offending vehicle to deposit the compensation amount
along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been
filed.
6. The learned counsel for the claimants has
contended that the Tribunal has given a finding that the
offending vehicle is a crane, the driver of the offending
vehicle does not have any special endorsement and also
effective driving licence to operate the said machine.
Therefore, the Tribunal has exonerated the Insurance
Company and fixed the liability on the owner of the
offending vehicle. Since the offending vehicle is covered
with valid insurance policy, in respect of claimants is
concerned, Insurance Company has to pay the
compensation amount with liberty to recover the same
NC: 2023:KHC:44430
from the owner of the offending vehicle. In support of his
contentions, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court
in the case of 'PAPPU AND OTHERS vs. VINOD KUMAR
LAMBA AND ANOTHER' AIR 2018 SC 592 and a Full
Bench judgment of this Court in 'NEW INDIA
ASSURANCE CO. LTD. BIJAPUR vs. YALLAVVA AND
ANOTHER' ILR 2020 Kar.2239. Hence, he prays for
allowing the appeal.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
Insurance Company has contended that it is not in dispute
that the driver of the crane vehicle did not have special
endorsement to operate the said machine. Since the
insured has violated the policy condition, the Tribunal has
rightly exonerated the Insurance Company. Hence, he
sought for dismissal of the appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the judgment and award and original records.
9. It is not in dispute that Rajkumar Mehta died in
the road traffic accident occurred due to rash and
NC: 2023:KHC:44430
negligent driving of the Crane bearing registration No.NL-
02/L-2464 by its driver.
10. The Tribunal after considering the evidence of
the parties has given a finding the driver of the offending
vehicle was not holding proper and valid endorsement
along with driving licence to operate crane machinery and
hence rightly exonerated the Insurance Company from
liability and liability has been fixed on the owner of the
offending vehicle. The said finding of the Tribunal has not
been challenged by the owner of the offending vehicle.
However, in respect of the claimants is concerned, in view
of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of PAPPU
(supra) and Full Bench of this Court in the case of
YELLAVVA (supra), the Insurance Company has to pay
the compensation amount at the first instance with liberty
to recover the same from the owner of the offending
vehicle.
11. In view of the above, I pass the following order:
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
NC: 2023:KHC:44430
(ii) The judgment of the claims Tribunal is modified.
(iii) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the compensation amount along with interest @ 6% p.a.
from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of
realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this judgment, with liberty to recover
the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CM
