Karnataka High Court
United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Sri R K Manjunatha on 5 April, 2024
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:14273
MFA No. 415 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.415 OF 2016(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE, RAGHAVENDRA COLONY,
B.H.ROAD, TIPTUR,
THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE,
KRISHI BHAVAN BUILDING,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 009.
REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER,
SRI. K.N.SURESH.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B.C.SEETHARAMA RAO., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. R.K.MANJUNATHA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
Digitally signed by S/O SRI. KRISHNAPPA,
THEJASKUMAR N RESIDENT OF RAJATHADRIPURA,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF TIPTUR TALUK-572 202.
KARNATAKA NOW AT C/O PRAKASH,
KAMATAIAH EXTENSION,
BANASHANKARI II STAGE,
TUMKUR-572 001.
2. SRI. DEVARAJU
MAJOR,
S/O GANIGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.173,
THEERTHAPURA AT AND POST,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:14273
MFA No. 415 of 2016
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 214.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R.V.RAMESHKUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:22.08.2015
PASSED IN MVC NO.840/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, TUMKUR.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR
FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Sri.B.C.Seetharama Rao., learned counsel for the
appellant has appeared through video conferencing.
2. Emergent notice to the respondents was ordered on
20.08.2016. A perusal of the office note depicts that
respondent No.2 is served and unrepresented. He has neither
engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as
party in person.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their status and rankings before the Tribunal.
NC: 2024:KHC:14273
4. The brief facts are these:
On the twenty-ninth day of December 2011 at about 5:00
pm., the claimant was traveling in a motorbike bearing
Registration No.KA-44-H-9878 as a pillion rider from
Rajathadripura to Tiptur. It is said that one Gurprasad was
riding the motorbike. When they reached near the Rahul Petrol
Bunk, Hindiskere gate, Tiptur town, the rider of the motorbike
rode the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit the road
side bridge. Due to the impact, the claimant sustained injuries
all over the body and the vehicle was damaged. Immediately,
he was shifted to Government Hospital, where he took first aid
and the doctor advised to higher center for further treatment.
As per the advise of the doctor, he was shifted to Adithya
Orthopedic and Trauma Center, Tumakuru and admitted as an
inpatient and underwent operation of his left leg, rods and
screws were inserted. Contending that he is entitled for
compensation, the claimant filed a claim petition.
In response to the notice, the first respondent remained
absent before the Tribunal and hence, he was placed ex-parte.
The second respondent Insurance Company appeared through
NC: 2024:KHC:14273
its counsel and filed written statement denying the petition
averments. Among other grounds, it prayed for dismissal of the
claim petition.
Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed
issues, parties led evidence and marked the documents. The
Tribunal vide Judgment dated:22.08.2015 partly allowed the
claim petition and directed the insurance company to satisfy
the compensation amount. The Insurance Company has
assailed the Judgment of the Tribunal in this appeal on several
grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of appeal.
5. Learned counsel Sri.B.C.Seetha Rama Rao., in
presenting his argument submits that the appeal is filed on a
solitary ground that the insurance policy is a 'Liability Only
Policy'. Hence, the risk of pillion rider is not covered. Counsel
therefore, submits that the Insurance Company may be
exonerated from the liability.
Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant
and perused the appeal papers and also the records with
utmost care.
NC: 2024:KHC:14273
6. The point that requires consideration is whether the
Tribunal is justified in fastening the liability on the Insurance
Company.
7. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require
reiteration. Ex.R.1 is the Insurance Policy. A perusal of the
same depicts that the motorcycle was covered with
'LIABILITY ONLY POLICY', in which the risk of pillion rider is
not covered. The Tribunal has overlooked this aspect of the
matter and erroneously fastening liability on the Insurance
Company. This is unsustainable in law.
8. For the reasons stated above, the Judgment of the
Tribunal in so far as fastening the liability on the Insurance
Company is set-aside. The Insurance Company is exonerated
from its liability to pay the compensation.
9. Resultantly, the Miscellaneous First Appeal is
allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
TKN
