Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager, Icici Lombard vs Sahadevappa S/O Shivappa Hadimani on 3 January, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:95
MFA No. 21986 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.21986 OF 2012 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
SVR COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR, 89 HOSUR ROAD, BANGALURU
(INSURER OF THE VEHICLE BEARING REGISTRATION
NO.KA 01/TC-75), REPRESENTED BY
MANAGER LEGAL THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ICICI
LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
BELLAD AND COMPANY LTD., 2ND PLOT,
GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SAHADEVAPPA
S/O. SHIVAPPA HADIMANI,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS,
Digitally R/O: MAGOD VILLAGE, TALUK: RANEBENNUR,
signed by DIST: HAVERI.
SAMREEN
SAMREEN AYUB
AYUB DESHNUR 2. MANAGING DIRECTORS,
DESHNUR Date: M/S BANGALORE MOPEDS SALES
2024.01.12
11:38:38 AND SERVICES, (PVT.) LTD., LALBHAG ROAD,
+0530
BANGALURE (OWNER OF THE VEHICLE
BEARING REGISTRATION NO. KA 01/TC-75).
...RESPONDENTS
(R1 AND R2 ARE SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 08.12.2011 PASSED IN MVC.NO.302/2007 ON THE
FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL.
MACT, RANEBENNUR, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF
RS.2,09,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE
DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALISATION.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:95
MFA No. 21986 of 2012
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.S.K.Kayakmath, learned counsel for the
appellant. No representation on behalf of the respondents
though served with notice of the appeal.
2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment
and award passed in MVC No.302/2007 dated 08.12.2011
by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and AMACT, Ranebennur.
3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal
of the appeal are as under:
3.1 On 10.09.2006, at about 7.30 p.m., petitioner having
travelled in vehicle bearing No.KA.01/TC 75 along with
sericulture bags as an authorized passenger with the
permission of the driver. When the said lorry reached near
Vinayaka Rice Mill, near Davanagere, dashed against
tractor and trailer bearing Reg. No.KA-16/T-550 and KA-
16/T-1228. In the said accident, the claimant suffered
grievous injuries all over the body including fractured
NC: 2024:KHC-D:95
injuries. He was shifted to C.G.Hospital, Davanagere and
then to Kasturba Manipal Hospital for higher treatment
and therefore, lodged a claim petition seeking
compensation.
4. The claim petition was resisted by the insurance
company by filing detailed written statement, interalia
contending that the policy was a transit policy and
therefore it did not cover risk of anybody else other than
the risk of the driver of the vehicle. It is also contended
that the claimant being an unauthorized passenger in the
offending vehicle, he was not covered under the policy and
therefore, sought for dismissal of the petition.
5. The trial court after raising necessary issues and on
cumulative consideration of oral and documentary
evidence on record, allowed the claim petition by granting
sum of Rs.2,09,000/- as compensation amount and
directed that the insurance company is liable to pay the
compensation.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:95
6. Being aggrieved by the same, insurance company is
in appeal.
7. Reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal
memorandum, Sri.S.K.Kayakmath vehemently contended
that the policy being a transit policy, the conditions of the
transit policy did not cover the unauthorized passenger
and sought for absolving the liability fastened on the
insurance company.
8. In support of his contentions, he also placed reliance
on the judgment of coordinate bench of this court in MFA
No.8515/2009 connected with MFA No.6496/2009 arising
out of the same accident.
9. Since, respondents are served and unrepresented,
this court has perused the material on record meticulously
and also the decision rendered by the coordinate bench in
the aforesaid cases.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:95
10. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the
appellant, the policy being a transit policy, did cover only
the risk of the driver of the vehicle and none else.
11. In paragraph 12 of the impugned judgment, even
though learned trial judge has bestowed his best attention
to the conditions of the policy which is marked at Ex.R1
and referring to the judgment passed in MFA
No.8515/2009 and connected matter, still proceeded to
order for the compensation fastening the liability on the
insurance company. Learned trial judge discussed the
conditions of the policy but, failed to appreciate the
conditions of the policy marked at Ex.R1 in its proper
perspective.
12. When the policy covered only the risk of the driver of
the vehicle and none else in the absence of extra premium
paid to the insurance company, fastening the liability on
the insurance company is thus illegal and requires
interference by this Court.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:95
13. Accordingly, while maintaining the quantum of
compensation in the absence of challenge to the same,
this Court has to modify the impugned judgment and
award only insofar as fastening the liability on the
insurance company. Hence, following :
ORDER
i) Appeal is allowed.
ii) The liability fastened on the appellant-
insurance company in the impugned judgment is
hereby set aside and rest of the judgment and
award stands unaltered.
iii) No orders as to costs.
iv) The amount in deposit is ordered to be
returned to the insurance company.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HMB
