Karnataka High Court
Mariyappa vs Manjesh on 9 January, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:1214
MFA No. 3276 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 3277 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3276 OF 2014 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3277 OF 2014 (MV-I)
IN MFA No.3276/2014
BETWEEN:
1. MARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
S/O LATE SIDDALINGAIAH,
2. REVANNA SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
S/O LATE SIDDALINGAIAH,
BOTH ARE R/AT GUDEMARANAHALLI
@ POST, MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT
Digitally ...APPELLANTS
signed by (BY SRI. SRIPAD V SHASTRI, ADVOCATE)
BHARATHI S
Location: AND:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. MANJESH
S/O MARISWAMAIAH,
MAJOR,
R/AT T. BEGUR,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562123
2. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD
NO.28, EAST WING,
V FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING,
M.G. ROAD,
BENGALURU 560001
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:1214
MFA No. 3276 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 3277 of 2014
REP BY ITS MANAGER
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ASHOK N PATIL., ADVOCATE FOR R2
R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:26.8.2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1244/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE &
MACT, BANGALORE PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA No.3277/2014
BETWEEN:
1. MARUTHI
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS,
R/AT NO.283, RAJANNA COMPOUND,
T. BEGUR @ POST,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
SINCE MINOR REP: BY HIS FATHER AND
NATURAL GUARDIAN HEMANNA
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHRIPAD V SHASTRI., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MANJESH
S/O MARISWAMAIAH,
MAJOR,
R/AT T. BEGUR, NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562123
2. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD
NO.28, EAST WING, V FLOOR,
CENTENARY BUILDING,
M.G ROAD, BENGALURU 560001
REP: BY ITS MANAGER
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ASHOK N PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2
R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.08.2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1245/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:1214
MFA No. 3276 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 3277 of 2014
JUDGE AND MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BENGALURU (SCCH-18), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The above appeals are filed by the claimants challenging
the judgment and award dated 26.8.2013 passed in MVC
Nos.1244 and 1245 of 2012 by the III Additional Senior Civil
Judge and Member, MACT, Bangalore(SCCH-18)1 respectively.
2. Since both the claim petitions were disposed of by a
common judgment dated 26.8.2013 by the Tribunal, which
arose out of the same accident, both these appeals are taken
up together for consideration.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are
referred as per their rank before the Tribunal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants Sri Sripad V
Shastri appearing in both the appeal submits that if the finding
of the Tribunal with regard to the liability is considered, the
appellants would not press the appeals with regard to
Hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'
NC: 2024:KHC:1214
enhancement of compensation. He further submits that the
Tribunal has directed the owner of the vehicle to pay the
compensation awarded having regard to the fact that there was
violation of the permit condition and that having regard to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amrit
Paul Singh v. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.,2 the
compensation is required to be paid by the insurer, who in turn
is entitled to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.
5. Per Contra learned counsel Shri Ashok N Patil
appearing for the second respondent - insurer submits that
although in terms of the judgment in Amrit Paul Singh2 the
insurer is liable to pay the compensation, that the Tribunal
while awarding compensation has ordered for payment of the
same together with interest at 8% per annum and that the
award of interest at 8% per annum is contrary to the judgment
of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ms. Joyeeta
Bose & ors., v. Venkateshan V & Ors.,3 and submits that
the interest is required to be awarded at 6%.
(2018) 7 SCC 558
Judgment dated 24.8.2020 passed in MFA No.5896/2018
NC: 2024:KHC:1214
6. The submissions of both the learned counsel have
been considered and the material on record including records of
the Tribunal have been perused. The questions that arise for
consideration are:
1) Whether the second respondent is liable to pay the
compensation awarded and recover the same from the
owner?
2) Whether the interest is required to be ordered at
6% per annum?
Re. Question No.1:
7. It is relevant to note that considering the aspect
regarding the vehicle in question i.e., autorickshaw had the
requisite permit, it was noticed that the accident had occurred
between Athingere and Gollaradoddi village and the complaint
has been registered in the jurisdiction of Magadi Police Station,
Ramanagara District. That as per the permit - Ex.R3, the auto
rickshaw was required to ply within the radius of 10 km from
Nelamangala Rural, but the place of accident is more than 10
km. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that there is violation
of policy condition and held that the owner is liable to pay the
composition awarded.
NC: 2024:KHC:1214
8. In the case of Amrit Paul Singh2 the Hon'ble
Supreme Court after considering the aspect of violation of
permit condition has held as follows:
"24. In the case at hand, it is clearly demonstrable
from the materials brought on record that the vehicle at
the time of the accident did not have a permit. The
appellants had taken the stand that the vehicle was not
involved in the accident. That apart, they had not stated
whether the vehicle had temporary permit or any other
kind of permit. The exceptions that have been carved out
under Section 66 of the Act, needless to emphasise, are
to be pleaded and proved. The exceptions cannot be
taken aid of in the course of an argument to seek
absolution from liability. Use of a vehicle in a public place
without a permit is a fundamental statutory infraction. We
are disposed to think so in view of the series of exceptions
carved out in Section 66. The said situations cannot be
equated with absence of licence or a fake licence or a
licence for different kind of vehicle, or, for that matter,
violation of a condition of carrying more number of
passengers. Therefore, the principles laid down in Swaran
Singh [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh,
(2004) 3 SCC 297 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 733] and Lakhmi
Chand [Lakhmi Chand v. Reliance General Insurance,
(2016) 3 SCC 100 : (2016) 2 SCC (Civ) 45] in that regard
would not be applicable to the case at hand. That apart,
the insurer had taken the plea that the vehicle in question
had no permit. It does not require the wisdom of the
"Tripitaka", that the existence of a permit of any nature is
a matter of documentary evidence. Nothing has been
brought on record by the insured to prove that he had a
permit of the vehicle. In such a situation, the onus cannot
be cast on the insurer. Therefore, the Tribunal as well as
the High Court had directed that the insurer was required
to pay the compensation amount to the claimants with
interest with the stipulation that the insurer shall be
entitled to recover the same from the owner and the
driver. The said directions are in consonance with the
principles stated in Swaran Singh [National Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 : 2004 SCC (Cri)
NC: 2024:KHC:1214
733] and other cases pertaining to pay and recover
principle."
(emphasis supplied)
9. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court as noticed above, the judgment and award of the
Tribunal is required to be interfered with only to the extent of
directing the respondent No.2 - insurer to pay the
compensation awarded with liberty to recover the same from
the owner of the vehicle question. Accordingly, question No.1
is answered in the affirmative.
Re. Question No.2:
10. The Tribunal has awarded interest at 8% per
annum. Learned counsel for the insurer is justified in
contending that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Ms.Joyeeta Bose3 has held that the interest is liable to be
paid at 6% per annum and that the same is required to be
applied in the present case also. Learned counsel for the
appellant does not dispute the position of law held by the
Division Bench in the case of Ms.Joyeeta Bose3. Hence, as the
judgment of the Division Bench is binding on this Court, it is
just and proper that the interest awarded by the Tribunal also
NC: 2024:KHC:1214
be interfered with to direct payment of interest at 6% per
annum. Accordingly, question No.2 is answered in the
affirmative.
11. In view of the aforementioned, the following:
ORDER
i) The appeals are allowed in part;
ii) The judgment and awards dated 26.8.2013
passed in MVC Nos.1244 and 1245/2012 III
Additional Senior Civil Judge and Member,
MACT, Bangalore(SCCH-18), are modified to
the extent stated herein. In all other respects,
the judgment and award of the Tribunal
remain unaltered;
iii) The appellant/claimant is entitled to the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal with
interest at 6% per annum from the date of
petition till its realization.
iv) Respondent No.2 - Insurance Company is
directed to deposit the compensation awarded
together with accrued interest within a period
of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of the judgment;
NC: 2024:KHC:1214
v) The Registry to draw the modified award
accordingly.
v) No costs.
SD/-
JUDGE
ND
