The Divisional Manager New India vs Irfan And Anr
2024 Latest Caselaw 25405 Kant

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 25405 Kant
Judgement Date : 24 October, 2024

Karnataka High Court

The Divisional Manager New India vs Irfan And Anr on 24 October, 2024

                                             -1-
                                                          NC: 2024:KHC-K:7836
                                                    MFA No. 201870 of 2017




                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

                                     KALABURAGI BENCH

                          DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

                                           BEFORE
                   THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

                        MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201870 OF 2017 (MV-I)

                   BETWEEN:

                   THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
                   NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
                   DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
                   SANGAMESHWAR COLONY,
                   S.B.TEMPLE ROAD, KALABURAGI.
                   REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS DULY CONSTITUTED
                   ATTORNEY (S).

                                                                 ...APPELLANT
                   (BY SRI. MANVENDRA REDDY,ADVOCATE)
                   AND:

                   1.   IRFAN
Digitally signed        S/O PASHAMIYA MUGALI,
by RENUKA
                        AGE:24 YEARS, OCC:PRIVATE WORK,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF                R/O HARSOOR,
KARNATAKA               TQ.& DIST.KALABURAGI-585102.

                   2.   ANAND S/O SHANMUKHAPPA MUDDA
                        AGED:27 YEARS, OCC:OWNER OF JEEP
                        BEARING REG.NO.KA-32-M-1267,
                        R/O VILLAGE HARSOOR,
                        TQ & DIST.KALABURAGI-585102.
                                                               ...RESPONDENTS

                   (BY SRI. SANJEEV PATIL FOR C/R1, ADVOCATE
                       & NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT
                       V/O DTD:12.07.2024 )
                              -2-
                                             NC: 2024:KHC-K:7836
                                       MFA No. 201870 of 2017




     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173 (1) OF MV ACT PRAYING
THAT THIS HON BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO CALL FOR
THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED-01.08.2017 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND MACT, KALABURAGI IN MVC NO.454/2015 BY
ALLOWING THE APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR.

    THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION , THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:    HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

                        ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)

Captioned appeal is filed by the Insurance Company

questioning the liability fastened on it, when admittedly

the vehicle involved in the accident was a private car and

it was an Act policy.

2. The Tribunal without examining the insurance

copy furnished by the Insurance Company evidenced at

Ex.-R1, has fastened the liability on the Insurance

Company on the premises that the official examined on

behalf of the Insurance Company has admitted that the

police is a comprehensive policy. This finding is prima facie

NC: 2024:KHC-K:7836

palpably erroneous. The Tribunal ought not to have taken

cognizance of the admission in oral evidence, which is

contrary to the policy. It is the policy, that was required to

be looked into and not the admission elicited in cross

examination of RW-1.

3. This Court has examined the policy, which is

placed on record by the learned counsel appearing for the

Insurance Company. Admittedly, the policy issued in

favour of the owner is a private car liability policy and no

additional premium is collected, covering the risk of

inmates of the private car.

4. The case on hand is clearly covered by the law

laid down by the Division bench of this Court in the case of

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Gulbarga V/s

Shravankumar Sidramappa Patre in MFA

No.32944/2013. The Division Bench while examining the

liability of the Insurance Company, in the case of Act

policy, held that in case of private vehicle, where the

liability is only limited to third party, does not cover the

risk of the inmates of the private vehicle. Therefore, the

NC: 2024:KHC-K:7836

Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to

the inmates of the private car. The law laid down by the

Division Bench of this Court is clearly applicable to the

present case at hand.

5. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal

that the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify and pay

compensation is perverse and contrary to the law laid

down by the Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, the

liability fastened on the Insurance Company is liable to be

set aside. For the foregoing reasons, this Court passes the

following Order:

ORDER

i. MFA is allowed. ii. The petition filed by the claimant is dismissed as against the Insurance Company.

       iii.      Consequently,           the   claimant    is
                 entitled   for      a     compensation    of

Rs.5,58,300/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization and respondent No.2/owner of the

NC: 2024:KHC-K:7836

vehicle is liable to pay the compensation.