Karnataka High Court
Sulaiman vs The Manager on 29 July, 2024
Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29812
MFA No. 5364 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5364 OF 2019 (MV)
BETWEEN:
SULAIMAN
S/O LATE UMAR
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/AT NO.337, VENKATA REDDY NAGAR
SIDDAPURA, JAYANAGAR, 1ST BLOCK
BANGALORE-11.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHRIPAD V SHASTRI .,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.
5TH AND 6TH FLOOR
KRUSHI BHAVAN BUILDING
HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE-01.
Digitally signed by
2. MR NARASIMHA REDDY
HEMALATHA A S/O LATE CHIKKANARAYANAPPA
Location: HIGH LAKSHMI NILAYA, VARADA MILL ROAD
COURT OF N R EXTENSION, CHINTAMANI TAUK
KARNATAKA
KOLAR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.L SREEKANTA RAO., ADVOCATE FOR R1:
NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:27.02.2016
PASSED IN MVC NO. 1181/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE III
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MEMBER, MACT, COURT
OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU [SCCH-18], PARTLY
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29812
MFA No. 5364 of 2019
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been
filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment
dated 27.02.2016 passed by the III Additional Senior Civil
Judge & Member MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru
in MVC No.1181/2015.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly
stated are that on 12.03.2015 at about 04.00 p.m., the
claimant was trying to board the Lakshmi Travels Private
Bus bearing Registration No.KA-07-9779 along with his
mother, on Kalasipalya bus stand, at that time, the driver
of the said Bus drove the same in a rash and negligent
manner and suddenly took the Bus in reverse direction
NC: 2024:KHC:29812
without giving any signal. As a result of the aforesaid
accident, the claimant lost the control and fell down on the
road from the Bus and sustained grievous injuries and was
hospitalized.
3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the
Act, seeking compensation. It was pleaded that he spent
significant amount towards medical expenses, conveyance
charges and other related costs. It was further pleaded
that the accident occurred solely on account of rash and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.
4. Upon service of notice, the respondent No.1
appeared through counsel and filed written statement
denying the averments made in the claim petition. The
respondent No.2, despite service of notice, did not appear
before the Tribunal and was placed ex-parte.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the
Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter, recorded
NC: 2024:KHC:29812
the evidence. The claimant, in order to prove the case,
examined himself as PW-1, and Dr.Chidanand K.J.C. was
examined as PW-2, and got exhibited documents namely
Ex.P1 to Ex.P16. On behalf of the respondents, two
witnesses were examined as RW-1 and RW-2 and got
exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R5. The Claims
Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that
the accident took place on account of rash and negligent
driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, as a result of
which, the claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal further
held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of
Rs.2,70,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a.
and directed the owner to deposit the compensation
amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, the present
appeal has been filed.
6. The learned counsel for the claimant has contended
that as on the date of the accident, the owner of the
offending vehicle was not having a valid route permit. In
view of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
NC: 2024:KHC:29812
AMRIT PAUL SINGH AND ANOTHER vs. TATA AIG
GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS
reported in (2018) 7 SCC 558, in respect of third party is
concerned, the Insurance Company has to pay the
compensation amount at the first instance with liberty to
recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.
But the Tribunal has erred in not directing the Insurance
Company to pay the compensation. To that extent, he
sought for modification of the judgment and award passed
by the Tribunal by allowing the present appeal.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
Insurance Company has contended that as on the date of
the accident, the offending vehicle was not having a valid
route permit. Since the insured has violated the policy
condition, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the
compensation and the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the
Insurance Company from the liability. Hence, he sought
for dismissal of the appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC:29812
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.
9. It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained
injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on 12.03.2015
due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle
by its driver.
10. In respect of the quantum of compensation, the
Tribunal, after considering the evidences of the parties and
materials available on record granted a just and
reasonable compensation.
11. In respect of the liability is concerned, it is not in
dispute that as on the date of the accident, the owner of
the offending vehicle was not having a valid route permit.
Since the insured has violated the policy condition, the
Tribunal has rightly exonerated the Insurance Company
from the liability. However, in respect of third party is
concerned, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of AMRITPAUL SINGH (supra),
NC: 2024:KHC:29812
the Insurance Company has to pay the compensation
amount at the first instance, with liberty to recover the
same from the owner of the offending vehicle.
12. In the result, the following order is passed:
ORDER
a) The appeal is allowed in part.
b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.
c) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
entire compensation amount along with interest
to the claimant from the date of filing of the claim
petition till the date of realization, within a period of
six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this
judgment with liberty to recover the same from the
owner of the offending vehicle.
Sd/-
(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD)
JUDGE
HA
