Karnataka High Court

Sri S Vasudeva vs Sri Irfan on 10 September, 2024

                                                 -1-
                                                               NC: 2024:KHC:36877
                                                          MFA No. 8078 of 2013




                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                           DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

                                               BEFORE

                     THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

                     MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8078 OF 2013(MV-I)

                     BETWEEN:

                     SRI S VASUDEVA,
                     AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
                     S/O SHIVANNA,
                     R/AT DOOR NO.13, 11TH MAIN,
                     14TH CROSS, J.P NAGAR,
                     "E" BLOCK, MYSORE - 570008.
                                                                     ...APPELLANT
                     (BY SRI G B MANJUNATHA, ADVOCATE)
                     AND:
                     1.    SRI IRFAN,
                           AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
                           S/O AKRAM PASHA,
                           R/AT DOOR NO.187, 9TH CROSS,
                           JANATHANAGAR J.P NAGAR "D" BLOCK,
Digitally signed by
PRAJWAL A                  MYSORE - 570008.
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA         2.    SRI N.S. BALACHANDRAN,
                           S/O N SATHYANARAYANA,
                           R/AT NO.42, DOOR NO.8, 1ST CROSS,
                           VISHWESHWARA NAGAR,
                           MYSORE - 570008.

                     3.    UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD
                           RAMASWAMY CIRCLE, MYSORE -570008.
                                                                  ...RESPONDENTS
                     (BY SMT.RUKHIABI, ADVOCATE FOR
                      SRI SANGAMESH R B, ADVOCATE FOR R1,
                      SRI H C VRUSHABENDRAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
                                -2-
                                            NC: 2024:KHC:36877
                                         MFA No. 8078 of 2013




     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 9.11.2012 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1497/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER,
MACT, I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSORE, AWARDING A
COMPENSATION OF RS.1,43,800/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A
ON THE SAID AMOUNT, EXCEPT ON FUTURE MEDICAL
EXPENSES OF RS.5,000/- FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
THE DATE OF PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION.

     THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM:     HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA


                      ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the driver of the car questioning

the dismissal of the claim against the Insurance Company.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be

referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are, on 06.05.2007 at

about 11:30 am., the petitioner was riding a Luna Scooter

Moped bearing registration No.KA-02-Q-7267, in front of

Raghavendra Dry Clinic at J.P.Nagar, Mysore, a car bearing

registration No.KA-15-M-1678 driven by the respondent No.1

dashed against the petitioner, due to which the petitioner fell

down and sustained injuries. After taking treatment at K.R.

Hospital under hospitalization, he has approached the

NC: 2024:KHC:36877

Tribunal for grant of compensation of Rs.6,50,000/-. Claim

was opposed by the Insurance Company. Tribunal after

taking evidence and hearing both parties, by impugned

judgment awarded compensation of Rs.1,43,800/- with

interest at 6% per annum and directed the driver and the

owner of the car to pay the compensation and dismissed the

claim against the Insurance Company on the ground that

there was no valid insurance at the time of the accident.

Aggrieved by the same, the driver of the car is before this

Court.

4. Heard the arguments of Sri.G.B.Manjunatha,

learned counsel for the appellant and Smt.Rukhiabi, the

learned counsel for Sri.Sangamesh R.B., for respondent No.1

and Sri.H.C.Vrushabendraiah, the learned counsel appearing

for respondent No.3.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the

driver of the car that on the date of the accident, respondent

No.2 Sri.N.S.Balachandran, is the owner of the car. The car

was insured with respondent No.3-United India Insurance

Company, the policy of insurance was in force at the time

NC: 2024:KHC:36877

and date of accident. The car originally belonging to one

Sri.Shivalinga Swamy, from whom the respondent No.2 has

purchased the said car on 02.05.2007, whereas the accident

took place on 06.05.2007. The policy of insurance under

Ex.R1 is misread by the Tribunal that there is no policy in the

name of respondent No.2 as it was issued with effect from

07.05.2007. When the car was purchased by the petitioner

No.2 on 02.05.2007, by default the policy of the insurance

shall cover risk of respondent No.2 also, application was

made to the Insurance Company for transfer of policy. In

compliance of such application, the policy was transferred in

the name of respondent No.2 with effect from 6 p.m. of

07.05.2007. The Tribunal erroneously recorded contrary to

the evidence that there was no policy of insurance and

dismissed the claim against the insurer.

6. To support his contention he has relied on the

judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of G.Govindan

v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd 1.

AIR 1999 SC 1398

NC: 2024:KHC:36877

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance

Company has contended that the original owner of the car

Sri.Shivalinga Swamy, was not arrayed as a party to the

claim petition. Policy was issued in favour of Sri.Shivalinga

Swamy, which was in force from 22.02.2007 to 22.03.2008.

If the respondent No.2 has purchased the car, the petitioner

ought to have impleaded the original owner of the car, so

that he can explain to the Tribunal the transfer of the title of

the car in favour of respondent No.2. The Tribunal is right in

holding that the policy of insurance does not cover the risk of

respondent No.2 for the accident on 06.05.2007 as the policy

was transferred in his name on 07.05.2007 and he supported

the impugned judgment.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has

contended that the petitioner has placed all relevant

materials before the Tribunal particularly the Police notice

issued to the petitioner regarding the details of the owner,

driver, driving license and also insurance particulars. Ex.R-1

is the policy of insurance which was valid and in force on the

date of accident. Irrespective of the policy being transferred

NC: 2024:KHC:36877

in the name of the purchaser i.e., respondent No.2, the risk

of respondent No.2 has to be covered under the policy and

Insurance Company ought to have indemnified the new

purchaser of the vehicle.

9. I have given my anxious consideration to the

arguments addressed on behalf of both sides and also

perused the materials on record.

10. There is no dispute as to the accident, in which

the petitioner has sustained injuries and his entitlement to

claim the compensation and accordingly the Tribunal has

assessed the compensation. The point is only with regard to

the liability on the part of the Insurance Company to

indemnify respondent No.2. Ex.P7 is the Police intimation

issued to the petitioner indicating respondent No.1 as the

driver of the car, respondent No.2 as the owner of the car at

the time of accident. The accident took place on 06.05.2007

at 11:30 a.m. Prosecution papers clearly point-out that

respondent No.2 was the owner of the vehicle on the date

and time of the accident. There is no need for impleading the

NC: 2024:KHC:36877

original owner of the car who had already sold the car in

favour of respondent No.2.

11. The policy of insurance was transferred in the

name of respondent No.2 with effect from 07.05.2007 but

the policy was in force in the name of the original owner

from 22.02.2007 to 22.03.2008. In this regard, the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the judgment referred supra held that the

victim of an accident cannot be denied the compensation by

the insurer on the ground that the policy was not transferred

in the name of the transferee. The Hon'ble Apex Court

clearly held that the transferee can take benefit of the policy

standing in the name of original owner of the car irrespective

of the transfer in his name.

12. In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex

Court supra, the Insurance Company cannot avoid its liability

and the Tribunal has lost sight of this aspect and it has

misread Ex.R1. Hence, the Insurance Company has to

indemnify the liability on the part of respondent No.2 who is

the present owner and thereby the Tribunal committed error

in dismissing the claim against the Insurance Company.

NC: 2024:KHC:36877

13. In view of the above, the appeal merits

consideration, in the result, the following:

ORDER

i) Appeal is allowed.

ii) Impugned judgment and award in dismissing the claim petition against the Insurance Company stands set-aside;

iii) Respondents No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally held liable to pay the compensation with interest as awarded by the Tribunal;

iv) Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire compensation with interest within eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment;