Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Parmanand Ningappa Sarvagol on 5 January, 2023
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
MFA No. 25498 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 25498 OF 2011 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI,
REPTED. BY ITS ASST.MANAGER,
REGIONAL OFFICE, TP HUB, II FLOOR,
SRINATH COMPLEX, NEW COTTON MARKET,
HUBBALLI-580029.
...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI G. N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. PARMANAND NINGAPPA SARVAGOL
OCC: AGRICULTURE,R/O. MUGALKOD,
TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOTE (DECEASED).
1(A) SMT. KALAVATI W/O PERMANAND SARAVAGOL,
ANNAPURNA AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE.
CHINNAPPA R/O MUGALKHOD, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOTE.
DANDAGAL
1(B) SMT. SHANKUNTALA W/O YAMANAPPA KARIMANI,
Digitally signed by
ANNAPURNA
CHINNAPPA DANDAGAL AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE.
Location: High court of
Karnataka, Dharwad
Bench, Dharwad
R/O NEW BUS STAND HUBBALLI.
Date: 2023.01.17
11:01:13 -0800
1(C) SMT. SHANTA W/O SHRISHAIL TUNGAL,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
R/O PANTHNAGAR, BELAGAVI.
1(D) SMT. MANGALA W/O SHIVANAND VADAGERI,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
R/O MYSORE.
-2-
MFA No. 25498 of 2011
1(E) MUTTANNA PERMANAND SARAVAGOL
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O MUGALKHOD, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOTE.
1(F) SHRISHAIL PERMANAND SARAVAGOL
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O MUGALKHOD, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOTE.
2. SHARANAPPA MALLAPPA INGALE
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOTE.
(OWNER OF TRUCK NO.KA-48/675).
3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI.
(INSURER OF TRUCK NO.KA-48/675)
4. MAHANTESH BABURAO GADDI
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SY. NO. 71, PLOT NO 23,
PANT NAGAR, PANT BALEKUNDRI, BELAGAVI.
(OWNER OF TATA SUMO NO.KA-26/1930).
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI GIRISH A.YADWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SHRI N.R.KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SHRI GANAPATI M.BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SHRI SANTOSH B.RAWOOT, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A TO F);
THIS MFA FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES
ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:07-09-
2011 PASSED IN MVC.NO.1305/2008 ON THE FILE OF
PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-I AND MEMBER,
ADDL.MACT, BELGAUM, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF
RS.3,48,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 9% P.A. FROM
THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
MFA No. 25498 of 2011
JUDGMENT
Challeng ing judgment and award dated
07.09.2011 passed by Fast Track Court-I & Member,
Additional M.A.C.T., Belagavi (for short, 'trib unal') in
MVC No.1305/2008, this appeal is filed by insurer.
2. Brief facts as stated are that in an accident
that occurred on 14.12.2007, claimants/ inmates of
Tata sumo bearing Reg.No.KA-26/M-1930 sustained
grievous injuries when it collided with a truck bearing
registration no.KA-48/675 coming from opposite
direction.
3. Claim petitions were opposed denying
negligence on part of driver of their resp ective
vehicles as well as on quantum. Insofar as insurer of
Tata sumo vehicle, it also contended that insurance
policy issued was an 'Act liability only' policy and as
claimants were inmates of Tata Sumo, it was not liable
to pay compensation. After examining claimants and
doctor, who treated them and marking exhibits,
Tribunal held accident had occurred due to rash
negligent driving of both offending vehicles to extent
MFA No. 25498 of 2011
of 50% each. Therefore, insurers were held liable to
pay compensation to ex tent of 50% of award . It also
assessed comp ensation and awarded same to
claimants.
4. Shri. G.N.Raichur, learned counsel submitted
that appeal filed by insurer is only in respect of
liability on ground that insurance policy issued was an
'Act liability only' policy and would not cover inmates.
5. On other hand , Sri. Santhosh B Rawoot,
learned counsel for claimant sought to support award
and opposed ap peal. It was submitted that claimant
was an inmate of insured vehicle and as such would be
a third-party and therefore, insurer would be liable.
6. From above submission, short point that
arises for consideration is:
"Whether tribunal was justified in
holding appellant insurer liable to
satisfied award ?"
7. On perusal of Ex.R1, it is seen that policy
issued in respect of TATA Sumo is an 'Act liability only'
MFA No. 25498 of 2011
policy. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd., V/s Sudhakaran K.V and
Ors., reported in (2008) 7 SCC 428, has held that
inmates of a private vehicle cannot be third-party and
insurer would not be liab le in case of 'Act policy'.
Ratio would squarely cover instant case. Hence, point
for consideration is answered in negative. Liability
fastened upon appellant-insurer is set-aside. But with
clarification that claimants would be entitled to
proceed against owner for compensation.
8. Hence following:
O R D E R
i. Appeal is allowed.
ii. Liab ility on insurer is set aside with
clarification that claimants would be
entitled to proceed against owner of
vehicle for award .
iii. Amount in deposit is ordered to be
refunded to appellant.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AM/GRD
