Dismissed

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd., v. Shri Santhosha

Karnataka HC21 Jan 2014MFA/11090/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In appeals against an award for motor accident compensation, the Court held that while insurance coverage transfers with the vehicle under Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurer need not pay inmates of an Act Policy if no premium is paid for such coverage.

What did the court decide?

Appeals dismissed; order of Tribunal modified to exonerate the insurer from paying compensation to the claimants.

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Vs Shri Santhosha — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

Dated this the 21^st day of January, 2014

¶4

Before

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH

¶6

Miscellaneous First Appeals 9896 c/w 9897 c/w 11089 c/w 11090 / 2011 (MV)

¶7

Between

¶8

In MFA 9896 / 2011

¶9

Santhosha S/o Shankara 21 yrs, R/o Ganigara Beedi Malavalli Town

¶10

In MFA 9897 / 2011

¶11

Krishna S/o Nagaraju 21 yrs, R/o Ganigara Beedi Malavalli Town Appellants

¶12

(By Sri R Pramod, Adv.)

¶13

And

¶14

1 Jagadeesh V Batija R/o # 14, Leonard Lane Flat # 302, S S Apartment Richmond Town Bangalore

¶15

2 Branch Manager New India Insurance Co Ltd

¶16

¶17

1200, 2^nd Cross Ashok Nagar, Mandya

¶18

3 Sirdhara S/o Arogya Swamy R/o # 93, 5^th Cross common Ashokapuram, Bangalore Respondents

¶19

(By Sri S T Rajashekar, Adv. For R2;

¶20

I n MFA 11089/2011 & 11090/2011

¶21

New India Assurance Co Ltd # 1200, II Cross, Ashokanagar Mandya - by its Manager Reg.Office: Unity Building Annexe # 2B, Mission Road Bangalore

¶22

Appellant

¶23

(By Sri R Rajagopalan, Adv.)

¶24

And

¶25

In MFA 11089/2011

¶26

1 Sri Krishna S/o Nagaraju 21 yrs, R/a Gangigara Beedi Malavalli, Mandya

¶27

2 Jagadish V Bhatija R/a # 14, Leonard Lane Flat # 302, S S Apartments Richmond Town, Bangalore

¶28

3 Sri Sridhara S/o Arogyaswamy # 93, 5^th Cross, Ashokpuram

¶29

¶30

Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Respondents

¶31

In MFA 11090/2011

¶32

1 Sri Santhosha S/o Shankara 21 yrs, R/a Ganigara Beedi Mallavalli, Mandya

¶33

2 Jagadish V Bhatija R/a # 14, Leonard Lane Flat # 302, S S Apartments Richmond Town, Bangalore

¶34

3 Sri Sridhara S/o Arogyaswamy # 93, 5^th Cross, Ashokpuram Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore

¶35

Respondents

¶36

(By Sri R Pramod, Adv. For R1 in both cases; Mr G Shankar Goud, Adv. For R2)

¶37

First Appeals are filed under S.173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act praying to modify/against the award dated 11.8.2011 in MVC 54 & 55 / 2009 by the MACT, Malavalli. First Appeals coming on for hearing this day, the Court delivered the following:

¶38

JUDGMENT

¶39

Appeals are filed against the award passed by the Addl. MACT in

¶40

MVC 54 and 55 of 2009 on 11.8.2011.

¶41

¶42

The delay of 19 days and 4 days in preferring the appeals (MFA 11089 and 11090 / 2011) by the insurance company is condoned.

¶43

Claimants are said to be inmates of the Tata Sumo vehicle bearing No.KA 03 N 5936. On the afternoon of 11.1.2009 on Malavalli - Kollegal road, due to the negligence of the driver of the said vehicle, the vehicle capsized near Bachnalli. Due to the impact, claimants sustained injuries and were treated at Government Hospital, Malavalli and thereafter, at Government Hospital, Mandya. Claiming compensation for the injuries suffered, they approached the Accident Claims Tribunal. 1^st respondent is the owner of the vehicle who has sold the vehicle to the 3^rd respondent and the 2^nd respondent is the insurer.

¶44

On going through the order of the Tribunal it is seen the case against 1^st respondent insurer is dismissed. Even the 1^st respondent had contended that there is clearance certificate given by the RTO to show that the vehicle was transferred on 14.8.2000 itself. The accident has taken place on 11.1.2009. The 2^nd respondent insurer also contested the case on various

¶45

¶46

grounds.

¶47

Based on the pleadings, Tribunal raised relevant issues and on the evidence of the 1^st respondent that he transferred the vehicle purchased in favour of the 3^rd respondent , the Tribunal saddled liability on the owner as well as the insurance company. Aggrieved by that order, the insurance company has filed two appeals and so also the claimants have filed appeals seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶48

According to the counsel representing the respondent first owner, the insured has been exonerated. So far as risk is concerned, the Policy does not cover the risk in respect of inmates of the vehicle and claimants are inmates and at the most, the liability could have been saddled on the owner. According to the counsel representing the insurer, it is only a Act Policy, neither there is a package policy nor additional premium is paid. The liability saddled on the insurer to pay compensation is erroneous.

¶49

On going through the award passed, having regard to the nature of

¶50

¶51

injuries sustained, I am of the opinion the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation. So far as liability is concerned, though it is an Act policy, as per S.157 of the Motor Vehicles Act on such transfer of the vehicle automatically the insurance coverage also gets transferred as is also held by the Apex Court in the case of M/s Complete Insulations (P) Ltd Vs New India Assurance Co Ltd - AIR 1996 SC 586 but in the case on hand, as it is submitted that it is an Act Policy and there is no additional premium collected for the inmates, in that view of the matter, question of pay and recover also does not arise as such, claimants are at liberty to recover the compensation from the 3^rd respondent who is the subsequent purchaser of the vehicle.

¶52

Accordingly, these appeals are disposed of modifying the order of the Tribunal.

¶53

Sd/Judge

¶54

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd., v. Shri Santhosha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd., v. Shri Santhosha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr S Sethumadhavan Vs Nil

Sitabai W/O Chandrashekhar Jewargi Vs Ratnamma W/O Laxman Ganapnoor

Anupama Banerji Vs Cheppudira M Shubbaiah