Allowed

The General Manager Ksrtc, v. Veerendra S/O Fakirappa Totagi

Karnataka HC9 Oct 2019MFA/20592/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal challenging a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. Finding that the appellant corporation had not definitively established vehicle ownership status before the lower court, the High Court remitted the matter for reconsideration in light of Supreme Court jurisprudence on bargained-for vehicles.

What did the court decide?

The judgment and award dated 07-05-2010 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and Member Addl. MACT, Saundatti, is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for reconsideration.

The General Manager Ksrtc, Vs Veerendra… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.20592 OF 2011 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE GENERAL MANAGER KSRTC, CENTREAL OFFICE, BANGALORE, THROUGH THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NWKRTC, BELGAUM DIVISION, THE APPLELLANT IS REP: BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, CENTRAL OFFICE, HUBLI ... APPELLANT (By Sri. SHIVAKUMAR S BADAWADAGI, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

VEERENDRA S/O FAKIRAPPA TOTAGI AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER, IN PRIVATE SCHOOL, R/O ASUNDI, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST. BELGAUM.

¶11

K VENKATAPPA I B TOWER NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE VIJAYAPURA CHIKAMAGALUR-577101

¶12

THE BRANCH MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD MANAJI CENTRE F-7 THIRUVIKA INDUSTRIAL GUINDY CHENNAI DIVISION OFFICE VIII CHENNAI-600032 ... RESPONDENTS

¶13

(By Sri. H M DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE, FOR R1

¶14

¶15

Sri. CHETAN D. MUDAKAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R2. SRI. RAJASHEKAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE FOR R3.)

¶16

THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07-05-2010 PASSED IN MVC.NO.1196/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, SAUNDATTI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.11,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION.

¶17

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

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

This appeal is filed by the corporation challenging

¶20

the judgment and award dated 07-05-2010 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and Member Addl. MACT, Saundatti, in MVC No.1196/2007 whereby the Tribunal has fastened the liability on the Corporation.

¶21

Brief facts of the case are that on 11.02.2006, the claimant was traveling in KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA.13/9647. The driver of the bus was driving the same in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. When the said bus reached HireUlligeri village, the driver of the bus lost control over the

¶22

bus and the bus toppled by the right side of the road and

¶23

¶24

in that process, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. He was shifted to the Government hospital, Saundatti, for treatment. Thereafter, he has taken treatment in a private hospital and has spent Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses. After recovering from the injury, the claimant has filed the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Saundatti, in MVC No.1196 of 2007 seeking compensation.

¶25

To establish his case, the claimant examined himself as PW-1 and got marked six documents as Exs.P1 to P-6. On behalf of the respondent, the corporation has neither examined any witness nor produced any document.

¶26

On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.11,000/- with interest at 6% per annum and fastened the liability on the Corporation. Being aggrieved by the same, the corporation has filed this appeal.

¶27

¶28

Sri. Shivakumar S. Badawadagi, learned

¶29

counsel appearing for the Corporation contended that it is their specific case that one Sri. K. Venkatappa is the owner of the vehicle and the corporation has availed that bus on contract basis. Since the corporation is not the owner of the vehicle, the corporation is not liable to pay any compensation. Without considering this aspect of the matter, the Tribunal has fastened the liability on the Corporation. Hence, sought for allowing the appeal.

¶30

Per contra, learned counsel for the insurance company and the learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that the Corporation has failed to establish before the Tribunal that the vehicle belonged to one Sri. K. Venkatappa and they had availed the same on contract basis. The Tribunal on the basis of the material available on record, has rightly fastened the liability on the Corporation. Hence, they sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶31

¶32

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶33

parties and perused the memo.

¶34

It is not in dispute that the claimant has suffered injury due to the accident that occurred on 11.02.2006 due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus bearing registration No.KA.13 9647. Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered injuries and has taken treatment in the hospital.

¶35

The Corporation has taken a specific

¶36

contention before the Tribunal that the bus belonged to one Sri. K. Venkatappa and the corporation has availed the same on contact basis. Since the vehicle is insured, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation and since the corporation is not the owner of the bus, the Tribunal has wrongly fastened the liability on the corporation. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Kulsum and others reported in ( 2011) 8 Supreme

¶37

¶38

Court Cases 142 has held that if SRTC had become owner of vehicle even for a specified period and the vehicle had been insured at instance of original owner, it will be deemed that vehicle was transferred along with insurance policy in existence to lessee SRTC. Hence, the liability of the insurance company is exclusive and absolute. In the case on hand to establish its claim, the corporation has filed a memo along with additional document i.e., an agreement entered into between the Corporation and Venkatappa.

¶39

In view of the additional documents filed by the Corporation, the matter requires to be remitted back to the Tribunal for reconsideration.

¶40

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and award dated 07-05-2010 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and Member Addl. MACT, Saundatti, in MVC No.1196/2007 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for reconsideration with liberty to the corporation to file an application for production of

¶41

¶42

additional documents. The Tribunal after impleading the owner and the insurance company of the vehicle in question as parties to the proceeding before the Tribunal and after hearing all the parties, shall pass orders in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. All contentions of the parties are keft open.

¶43

Amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal concerned.

¶44

SD/JUDGE

¶45

Kmv

The General Manager Ksrtc, v. Veerendra S/O Fakirappa Totagi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The General Manager Ksrtc, v. Veerendra S/O Fakirappa Totagi

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

Janimiya S/O Allauddinsab and Ors. Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Nagaraj S/O Vasant Shet Vs Satish S/O Shankar Kurdekar

Meenaxi Vs Satish

The Divisional Manager, Oicl, Club Road, Vs Dattatreya Bagwan Goundi @ Nayak

Joraram S/O. Hakmaji Prajapath Vs the Divisional Controller

Shri. Rajayogi Enterprises Vs the Mysore Minerals Limited