Karnataka High Court
Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs H Jagadeesha S/O Halappa M on 6 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:5287
MFA No. 8727 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8727 OF 2012 (MV)
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION,
DAVANAGERE DIVISION,
DAVANAGERE,
REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. H. JAGADEESHA,
S/O HALAPPA M.,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
R/O 12TH CROSS, A BLOCK,
DEVARAJA URS LAY OUT,
DAVANAGERE - 577 001.
2. R.M. BIRADAR,
Digitally signed
by BHARATHI S/O MALLANA GOWDA,
S R/O HALVAGALUR VILLAGE,
Location: HIGH HARAPPANAHALLI TALUK,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 001.
3. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
NO.19/1, I FLOOR, III CROSS,
CHIKKANNA GARDEN, SHANKARMUTT COMPUND,
BANGALORE,
KARNATAKA - 560 004.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A.K. SREEHARSHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. H.S. LINGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:5287
MFA No. 8727 of 2012
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:12.1.2012 PASSED IN MVC
NO.657/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS
JUDGE & MACT II, DAVANGERE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
RS.10,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF THE
PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The above appeal is filed by the KSRTC challenging the
judgment and award dated 12.01.2012 passed in
MVC.No.657/2010 on the file of I Additional District and
Sessions Judge and MACT-II, Davanagere1.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein
are referred as per their rank before the Tribunal.
3. The relevant facts necessary for consideration of
the present appeal are that the claimant, claiming
compensation for the injuries sustained in road traffic
accident occurred on 27.10.2009 filed a claim petition. It is
the case of the claimant that on the said date he was
traveling in an autorickshaw bearing No. KA-79-A/814 when
a KSRTC bus bearing No. KA.17/F-1165 being driven in rash
Hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'
NC: 2024:KHC:5287
and negligent manner came and hit the autorickshaw
causing the accident in question. The driver of the KSRTC
bus arrayed was Respondent No.1, Division Controller of
KSRTC as Respondent No.2. Respondent No.2-KSRTC
contested the claim proceedings. The claimant examined
himself as PW.1. Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6 were marked in evidence.
The Assistant Superintendent of KSRTC was examined as
RW.1. Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3 were marked in evidence.
4. The Tribunal by its judgment and award dated
12.01.2012 awarded a global compensation of `10,000/-
together with interest at 6% per annum and the Respondent
No.2 - KSRTC was directed to pay the compensation
awarded. Being aggrieved the present appeal is filed.
5. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 - KSRTC
assailing the judgment of the Tribunal contends that the
Tribunal has disbelieved the fact that the bus was insured
with the insurer who has been arrayed as Respondent No.3
in the present appeal. Further it is contended that the
Tribunal erroneously recorded the finding that since the bus
was registered in the name of the Managing Director,
NC: 2024:KHC:5287
regional work shop, Hassan and the name in the RC book
does not stand in the said name, the Tribunal has disbelieved
validity of the policy. It is further contended that the insurer
has satisfied the liability fastened on it, in compliance of the
judgment and award dated 20.09.2016 passed in
MVC.No.202/2012 by Court of Senior Civil Judge and MACT,
Honnali. Hence, the liability in the present case also is
required to be fastened on the insurer.
6. Learned counsel for Respondent No.3 - insurer does
not dispute the fact that the liability has been fastened on it
in MVC.No.202/2012 and the insurer has paid the
compensation awarded in the said case.
7. Having regard to the aforementioned, the question
that arises for consideration is 'whether the liability fastened
on the Appellant - KSRTC by the Tribunal is required to be
fastened on the Respondent No.3 - insurer?'
8. It is forthcoming that MVC.Nos.657/2010 and
202/2012 have been filed arising out of the same accident.
The said accident occurred between the autorickshaw
NC: 2024:KHC:5287
bearing No KA-79-A/814 and KSRTC bus bearing No.
KA.17/F-1165. The claimant in MVC.No.202/2012 who is the
owner of the autorickshaw, had sought for vehicle damage
and the Tribunal awarded sum of `30,000/-. For the
enhancement of the same, MFA.No.8581/2016 was filed by
the claimant. In the said proceedings, the finding of
negligence was held against the driver of the KSRTC. Hence,
the insurer of the KSRTC was directed to pay the
compensation awarded.
9. The present appeal arises out of claim made in the
MVC.No.657/2010. The claimant is alleged to have been
traveling in the autorickshaw. The Tribunal has held that the
accident was caused due to driver of the KSRTC bus.
10. Learned counsel for the KSRTC submits that
despite the fact that the KSRTC had taken the contention
before the Tribunal that the bus was insured, the claimant
did not implead the insurer in the proceedings before the
Tribunal. Hence, the insurer has been implead as Respondent
No.3 in the above appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC:5287
11. Learned counsel for Respondent No.3 - insurer
submits that the liability to pay interest from the date of the
petition ought not to be fastened on the insurer. Having
regard to the fact that the insurer is impleaded in the claim
proceedings for the first time in the present appeal, although
there appears to be some substance in the contention put
forth by the insurer, having regard to the quantum of
compensation awarded is only `10,000/- and the liability of
the insurer being undisputed, it is just and proper that the
insurer be directed to pay entire compensation together with
accrued interest.
12. Having regard to the aforementioned, in view of
the fact that the insurer of the KSRTC has satisfied the
award made by the Tribunal in MVC.No.202/2012. It is just
and proper that the compensation awarded in the present
claim proceedings in MVC.No.657/2010 also be ordered to be
paid by Respondent No.3 - insurer. In view of the
aforementioned, the question framed for consideration is
answered in the affirmative.
NC: 2024:KHC:5287
13. In view of the aforementioned, the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part;
ii) The judgment and award dated 12.01.2012
passed in MVC.No.657/2010 on the file of I
Additional District and Sessions Judge and MACT-
II, Davanagere, is modified to the extent stated
herein. In all other respects, the judgment and
award of the Tribunal remain unaltered;
iii) Respondent No.3 - Insurance Company is
directed to deposit the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal together with accrued interest within
a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt
of a copy of this judgment;
iv) The Registry to draw the modified award
accordingly.
v) No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PNV,HNM
