Karnataka High Court
The Claim Manager vs Vijaya on 30 October, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:43959
MFA No. 6228 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6228 OF 2016 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
THE CLAIM MANAGER
CHOLAMANDALAM GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
UNIT NO.4, NINTH FLOOR (LEVEL-6)
GOLDEN HIGHTS COMPLEX, 59TH
C CROSS, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB
RAJAJINAGAR, 4TH 'M' BLOCK
BANGALORE - 560 010
BY ITS MANAGER ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI O.MAHESH, ADV. [VC])
AND:
1. VIJAYA
AGED 43 YEARS
W/O MANOHAR @ A.MANOHARA@
MANOGAR
Digitally signed by
PRAJWAL A 2. MANIKANTA @ MANIKATAN
Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
COURT OF S/O MANOHAR @ A. MANOHARA @
KARNATAKA MANOGAR
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.4, 6TH CROSS
MANJUNATHA NAGAR, MAGADI ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 023
3. MANJU @ MANJU M.
AGED 28 YEARS
D/O MANOHAR A. MANOHARA @
MANOGAR, W/O SURESH KUMAR
NO.2, 9TH CROSS, MANJUNATHA
NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 023
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:43959
MFA No. 6228 of 2016
4. MAHESHWARI @ MAGESHWARI M.
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
D/O MANOHAR @ A.MANOHARA @
MANOGAR, W/O SURESH KUMAR
E-112 C, 18/2, 15TH CROSS
BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR
BINNIPETE, BANGALORE -560 023
5. UMESH E.
MAJOR, S/O ELUMALAI
NO.8, LAKSHMAN RAO NAGAR
SRIRAMPURAM POST
BANGALORE - 560 021 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.T.GURUDEVA PRASAD, ADV. FOR R1 TO R4;
R5 SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 3.6.2016 PASSED IN
MVC NO.2499/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE 21ST ACMM, 23RD
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MACT, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES, BENGALURU, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF
RS.11,86,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSITING THE AMOUNT IN THE
TRIBUNAL.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
T.G.SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA, J., DELIVERED/PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA)
In this appeal, the Insurance Company is challenging
the legality of the judgment and award dated 03.06.2016
NC: 2024:KHC:43959
passed in M.V.C.No.2499/2014 by the XXI A.C.M.M. and
XXIII A.S.C.J. (SCCH-25) Bengaluru.
2. For the sake of convenience, the rank of the
parties shall be referred to as per their status before the
Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are, on 30.01.2014 at
about 9.10 a.m., one Manohar @ A.Monahara @ Manogar,
the deceased, who is the husband of the first petitioner
and father of petitioner Nos.2 to 4, while transporting the
vegetables from the City Market in a TATA Goods vehicle
bearing Reg.No.KA-02/AC-1654 on Mysuru road, near
N.T.Pette 2nd Cross, the vehicle was dashed against the
speed breaker of the road, due to which, he fell down and
sustained injuries. He was treated at Swamy Health Care
and Suguna Hospital, Bengaluru and then at NIMHANS,
Bengaluru. In spite of it, he did not survive and
succumbed to the death. The petitioners being the
dependants, have approached the Tribunal for grant of
compensation of Rs.60,00,000/-. The claim was opposed
NC: 2024:KHC:43959
by the Insurance Company. The Tribunal, after taking the
evidence and hearing both the parties, allowed the claim
petition, granting compensation of Rs.11,86,000/- with
interest @ 6% per annum and fastened the liability against
the Insurance Company to pay the compensation.
Aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company is before
this Court.
4. Heard the arguments of Shri.O.Mahesh, learned
Counsel for the Insurance Company and
Shri.K.T.Gurudeva Prasad, learned Counsel for the
petitioners.
5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the
Insurance Company that, the deceased is not the owner of
the goods, he was not supposed to travel on the goods.
Utmost, the owner of the goods may be permitted to
travel inside the cabin and not on the luggage. The
Tribunal did not consider this aspect and fastened the
liability. To explain that the owner of the goods must
travel only in the cabin of the vehicle not on the goods,
NC: 2024:KHC:43959
learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. -vs-
Cholleti Bharatamma and Others1.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioners has
contended that, TATA Ace is a light motor vehicle, as per
Rule 100 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 (for
short, 'K.M.V.Rules'), three persons can be carried in the
said vehicle. The deceased was carrying his vegetables
from City Market and during the transit, he sustained
injuries and succumbed to the death. There is no rule that
the owner of the goods must travel only in the cabin, the
principle laid down in Cholleti Bharatamma's case
(supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case as the
Hon'ble Apex Court was dealing with the gratuitous
passengers. To support his argument, he relied on the
judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in
Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. -
vs- Shashidhara and another2 and also Divisional
2008 (1) SCC 423
2009 ACJ 1778
NC: 2024:KHC:43959
Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. -vs-
Smt.Sarojanibai and others 3.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the
arguments addressed on behalf of the parties and perused
the records.
8. There is no dispute as to the accident that took
place on 30.01.2014 while the deceased was transporting
the vegetables from City Market to Rajajinagar, at
N.T.Pette which is the middle of the way, the goods
vehicle was hit against the speed breaker, due to which
the deceased fell down, sustained injuries and succumbed
to the death. The evidence clearly point out that, at the
time of accident the deceased was on the goods and not
inside the cabin of the TATA Ace.
9. The arguments of the Insurance Company that in
order to consider the owner of the goods to travel he must
travel only inside the cabin. The Hon'ble Apex Court, while
dealing with the gratuitous passengers traveling in the
MFA.No.6628/2007 D.D.24.07.2008
NC: 2024:KHC:43959
cabin, observed at para 19 that, the owner of the goods
means 'only the person who travels in the cabin of the
vehicle'. The Hon'ble Apex Court was not dealing with Rule
100 of the K.M.V. Rules while deciding the Cholleti
Bharathamma's case (supra) as it hails from Andhra
Pradesh.
10. In view of the same, whether the deceased is
required to travel inside the cabin or whether his risk is
covered in the present scenario has to be considered. In
this regard, the Coordinate Bench of this Court in
Shashidhara's as well as Sarojanibai's case (supra),
referring to the Rule 100 of the K.M.V. Rules, that in a
light motor vehicle, three persons can be traveled and by
virtue of the same, Section 147 has been amended to
incorporate and include a person carrying the goods in the
goods carriage. In the present case, the deceased was not
gratuitous passenger, he was owner of the goods.
11. In view of the Karnataka scenario as special Rule
has been framed, which was not considered by the Hon'ble
NC: 2024:KHC:43959
Apex Court in Cholleti Bharatamma's case (supra), three
persons can also travel in a light motor vehicle as provided
under Rule 100 of K.M.V. Rules, the risk of the deceased is
on the higher side as he was also the owner of the goods.
Under such circumstances, the principles laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Cholleti Bharatamma's case
(supra) will not helpful to the Insurance Company. Hence,
the Tribunal, has considered all these aspects and has
rightly fastened the liability against the Insurance
Company.
12. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is
devoid of merits, in the result, the following.
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the
Tribunal.
SD/-
(T.G.SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA)
JUDGE
MKM/-
CT:HS
