Dismissed

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Smt.Sulochana

Karnataka HC17 Oct 2019MFA/102512/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this miscellaneous first appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award, the High Court of Karnataka dismissed the insurance company's appeal. The court held that an LMV license allows driving transport vehicles and accepted the tribunal's award for medical expenses.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed; the compensation amount in deposit before this Court shall be transmitted to the Tribunal.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt.Sulochana — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^th DAY OF OCTOBER 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.102512 of 2016 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., THE BRANCH MANAGER, MARUTI GALLI, BELAGAVI, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER.

¶9

... APPELLANT

¶10

(By Smt. PREETI SHASHANK, ADV. )

¶11

AND:

¶12

SMT.SULOCHANA SHANTINATH RAMASHETTY, AGE: 87 YEARS, R/O: HOUSE NO.28, HOSURU BASAVANA GALLI, SHAHAPUR, BELAGAVI.

¶13

SRI.MAHAVEER SHANTINATH RAMASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE, R/O: PLAT NO.45, SECTOR NO.9, M.M. EXTENTION AREA, BELAGAVI.

¶14

SRI.DHANYAKUMAR SHANTINATH RAMASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O: HOUSE NO.28,

¶15

¶16

HOSURU BASAVANA GALLI, SHAHAPUR, BELAGAVI.

¶17

SRI.NIRMAL KUMAR SHANTINATH RAMASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: HOUSE NO.28, HOSURU BASAVANA GALLI, SHAHAPUR, BELAGAVI.

¶18

SMT.MALA BHUJABALI DESAI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O": HOSURU BASAVANA GALLI, SHAHAPUR, BELAGAVI.

¶19

SRI.KAPIL VITTAL GHAVADE, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: HOUSE NO.600, RAJAHANSA GALLI, ANEGOOL, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶20

... RESPONDENTS

¶21

(By Sri. SANJAY S KATAGERI, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1, 2 AND 5.

¶22

RESPONDENT NOS. 3 ,5 AND 6 ARE SERVED. )

¶23

THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.05.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.1025/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE IIIADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MEMBER, IV-MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.2,69,500/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS DEPOSIT.

¶24

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

This appeal is filed by the insurance company challenging the judgment and award dated 02^nd March 2016 passed by the MACT, Belagavi, in MVC No.1025 of 2014 whereby the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.2,69,500/- with interest at 6% per annum.

¶28

Brief facts of the case are that on 30.03.2013 When tinath Ramashetty was walking on P.B.Road, Belgaum, a Tata Ace bearing registration No.KA-22/B4676 which was coming from opposite direction, dashed to Shantinath Ramashetty. He was shifted to the hospital. During treatment, Shantinath Ramashetty died on 13.10.2013. The claimants being the wife and children of deceased Shantinath Ramashetty filed a claim petition in MVC No.1025 of 2014 before the MACT, Belagavi, seeking enhancement.

¶29

To establish their claim, they examined one witness and marked 14 documents. On behalf of the

¶30

¶31

respondents, insurance company has examined one witness and got marked 4 documents.

¶32

On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs2,69,500/- with interest at 6% per annum.

¶33

Being aggrieved by the same, the insurance

¶34

company has filed this appeal.

¶35

Learned counsel for the insurance company contended that as on the date of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was having only LMV licence for non-transport vehicle but he was driving Tata Ace, which is a transport vehicle. He has violated the policy conditions. The Tribunal was not justified in fastening the liability on the insurance company. She further contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. Hence, she sought for allowing the appeal.

¶36

¶37

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the claimants contended that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in AIR 2017 Supreme Court 3668 has held that even though persons having LMV licence, they can drive a transport vehicle. Secondly, he contended that the Tribunal has rightly granted just compensation of Rs.2,69,500/-. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶38

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the records.

¶39

It is not in dispute that Shantinath Ramashetty was injured due to the accident that occurred on 30.03.2013 due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the TATA Ace bearing registration No. No.KA-22/B4676. Subsequently, he died on 13.10.2013. The Tribunal has given a finding that the death of Shantinath Ramashetty is not due to the

¶40

¶41

accident. That finding is not challenged by the claimants. The only challenge made by the insurance company is on the ground that as on the date of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was having only LMV licence for driving a non-transport vehicle and the driving licence is valid from 25.02.2011 to 24.02.2031. The Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan (supra) has specifically held that the licence to drive LMV includes licnece to drive a transport vehicle. The driver holding licence to drive LMV can also drive vehicles including transport vehicle.

¶42

In view of the above, the contention of the insurance company is not tenable.

¶43

With respect to the second contention is concerned, the Tribunal on the basis of the documents produced by the claimant such as wound certificate and discharge card, Exs.P-5 and 9, respectively, has rightly granted compensation of Rs.2,40,000/under the category of medical expenses. Therefore, there is no error in the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

¶44

¶45

12. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. The amount

¶46

in deposit before this Court shall be transmitted to the

¶47

Tribunal concerned.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

Kmv

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Smt.Sulochana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Smt.Sulochana

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

Reliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., Vs Maruthi W/O. B. Kotrappa

Reliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Rudramma W/O. B.B. Kotrappa

Ajajahmedkhan @ Ijajahmed, S/O Gudinkhan Bhadarvat Vs Mrs Kanakambaam

Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd. Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs Mallikarjun Irappa Karimallappanavar

Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd., Nigam Ltd. Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer