Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager, United India ... vs Padma W/O Manikchand Ladar on 12 February, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3392
MFA No. 22536 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 20976 of 2012, MFA No. 22535
of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.22536 OF 2012 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.20976 OF 2012
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.22535 OF 2012
IN M.F.A. NO.22536 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE, AT HAVERI
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIVISIONAL MANAGAER, HUBLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S.ARANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by
BHARATHI
1. PRASHANTHKUMAR S/O. ASHOK MANGAJ
BHARATHI H M
HM Date:
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: LAB ASSISTANT,
2024.02.21
11:58:15 R/O: M.V.P.U.COLLEGE DAVANGERI,
+0530
NOW RESIDING AT NEAR RAILWAY STATION,
HAVERI.
2. MANIKCHAND S/O. SANGAPPA LADAR
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: NEAR RAILWAY STATION, HAVERI,
TQ. and DIST: HAVERI.
(OWNER OF CAR NO.KA.02/N3040)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P.K. SANNINGAMMANAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3392
MFA No. 22536 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 20976 of 2012, MFA No. 22535
of 2012
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED: 01-12-2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.114/2011 ON THE
FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT., HAVERI, AWARDING
THE COMPENSATION OF RS.61,900/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE
OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION.
IN M.F.A. NO.20976 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
PADMA W/O. MANIKCHAND LADAR,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD,
R/O: NEAR RAILWAY STATION,
HAVERI-581110.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. P.K. SANNINGAMMANAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. S.R. HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MANIKCHAND S/O. SANGAPPA LADAR,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: NEAR RAILWAY STATION,
HAVERI-581110,
(OWNER OF CAR NO.KA.02/N-3040)
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., HUBLI,
ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT HAVERI
REPRESENTED BY ITS
BRANCH MANAGER, MOTALIK BUILDING,
OPP. KSRTC, BUS STAND,
HAVERI-581110.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S.ARANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED: 01-12-2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.113/2011 ON THE
FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT,
HAVERI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3392
MFA No. 22536 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 20976 of 2012, MFA No. 22535
of 2012
IN M.F.A. NO.22535 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE, AT HAVERI
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIVISIONAL MANAGER, HUBLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S.ARANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. PADMA W/O. MANIKCHAND LADAR,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
R/O: NEAR RAILWAY STATION,
HAVERI.
2. MANIKCHAND S/O. SANGAPPA LADAR,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: NEAR RAILWAY STATION,
HAVERI TQ AND DIST: HAVERI.
(OWNER OF CAR NO.KA.02/N-3040)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P.K. SANNINGAMMANAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. S.R. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED: 01-12-2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.113/2011 ON THE
FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT,
HAVERI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.59,400/- WITH
INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION
TILL REALIZATION.
THESE APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3392
MFA No. 22536 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 20976 of 2012, MFA No. 22535
of 2012
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri,Rajashekhar S. Arani, learned counsel for
the appellant and Sri.P.K.Sanningammanavar, learned
counsel for the respondents.
2. Insurance company is in appeal challenging the
liability fastened on the Insurance company in MVC
No.113/2011 and 114/2022 dated 01.12.2011 on the file
of Senior civil Judge and AMACT, Haveri whereas, the
claimant in MVC No.113/2011 by name Smt.Padma, has
sought for enhanced compensation.
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:
On 12.02.2010 at about 07.00 p.m. driver/owner of
the car bearing No.KA-02/N-3040, drove the said car in a
rash and negligent manner, resulting in an accident
whereby, the claimant in MVC No.113/2011 and claimant
in MVC No.114/2011 has suffered accidental injuries.
4. They claim that they were the inmates of the
car and because of the rash and negligent driving by the
driver of the car, accident has occurred.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3392
C/W MFA No. 20976 of 2012, MFA No. 22535
of 2012
5. Claim petition, on contest, came to be allowed
in a sum of Rs.59,400/- and Rs.61,900/- and absolved the
liability on the Insurance Company.
6. Insurance Company is in appeal challenging the
liability of the Insurance Company on the ground that
injured persons were inmates of the car and there was no
extra premium paid and therefore, they are not covered
by the injuries.
7. Per contra, claimant in MVC No.113/2011 has
sought for enhanced compensation.
8. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court
perused the material on record, meticulously.
9. On such perusal of the material on record, there
is no dispute as to the accidental injuries, sustained by the
claimants, who are inmates of the car. They filed claim
petition in MVC No.113/2011 and MVC No.114/2011 which
were allowed, on contest, in a sum of Rs.59,400/- and
Rs.61,900/-.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3392
C/W MFA No. 20976 of 2012, MFA No. 22535
of 2012
10. Admittedly, the car was insured and the policy
issued inrespect of the car is Act-only policy which covered
the risk of third parties only.
11. So far as, inmates of the car are concerned, the
policy did not cover in the absence of any extra premium
paid. Therefore, Tribunal fastening the liability on the
Insurance Company is incorrect.
12. Accordingly, a case is made out by the
Insurance Company to shift the liability on the owner.
13. Insofar as, claimant who has filed the appeal in
MFA No.20976/2012 is none other than the wife of the
owner of the car, who remained ex-parte. Since, the
liability is fastened on the owner, who is none other than
the husband of the appellant and taking note of the
injuries sustained by her, quantum of compensation
adjudged by the Tribunal is just and proper.
14. Accordingly, following:
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3392
C/W MFA No. 20976 of 2012, MFA No. 22535
of 2012
ORDER
i. Appeals filed by the Insurance Company in
MFA No.22536/2012 and MFA
No.22535/2012 are allowed.
ii. Liability fastened on the Insurance
Company is set aside and the owner of the
car is liable to pay the adjudged
compensation.
iii. MFA No.20976/2012 is dismissed.
iv. Amount in deposit is ordered to be
returned to Insurance Company.
v. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KAV
