Partly allowed

Hanumantha Sa Ladwa v. Channaveerappa

Karnataka HC7 Dec 2020MFA/1618/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court decided a miscellaneous first appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. It held that the insurer is liable to pay compensation even if the owner violated permit conditions and directed the insurer to deposit the amount.

What did the court decide?

The insurer ordered to deposit compensation and interest awarded by the Tribunal within one month, recoverable from appellants.

Hanumantha Sa Ladwa Vs Channaveerappa — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1618 OF 2013 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

HANUMANTHA SA LADWA S/O LATE NEGENDRA SA LADWA MAJOR, OWNER OF THE BUS BEARING REG. NO.KA-17/B-7833, SRI HANUMAN MOTOR SERVICE, LADWA STREET HARIHARA-577601.

¶9

1(a) SMT. KAMAKASHI BAI HANUMANTHA SA LADWA, W/O LATE SRI. HANUMANTHA SA LADWA, AGE: 52 YEARS

¶10

1(b) SRI. H. NAVEEN S/O LATE SRI. HANUMANTHA SA LADWA, AGE: 30 YEARS

¶11

BOTH THE APPELLANTS ARE R/O LADWA STREET, HARIHARA, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT- 577601.

¶12

AMENDED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 01.03.2014

¶13

... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. N.RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶14

¶15

AND:

¶16

CHANNAVEERAPPA S/O VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC: BEEDI SHOP AND AGRICULTURIST, CHIKKAVVANAGATHIHALLI, HULIKATTE POST, DAVANAGERE TQ. & DIST.-577001.

¶17

VEERESHI B.N. S/O NAGARAJAPPA B.M., MAJOR, DRIVER OF BUS BEARING REG. NO.KA 17/B-7833, R/O HONDADA CIRCLE, JALINAGARA, DAVANAGERE-577001.

¶18

THE MANAGER THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., S.M. TOWER, 2^ND FLOOR, 11^TH MAIN ROAD, 3^RD BLOCK, JAYANAGARA, BANGALORE-560041.

¶19

… RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. M.R.HIREMATHAD, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SERVICE OF NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.2 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 14.03.2014; SRI. H.N. KESHAVA PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3)

¶21

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED

¶22

¶23

16.11.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.918/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT-V, DAVANGERE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.68,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 7% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF ACTUAL REALISATION OF THE AMOUNT.

¶24

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

Though this appeal is listed for admission, it is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶27

This appeal was filed by the owner challenging the quantum of compensation and the liability fixed on him by the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – V, Davangere (henceforth referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) to pay the compensation in MVC No.918/2011.

¶28

For the sake of convenience, the original appellant, respondent No.2 and respondent No.3 in this

¶29

¶30

appeal will henceforth be referred to as the ‘owner’, ‘driver’ and ‘insurer’ respectively of the offending bus involved in the accident. Respondent No.1 herein will henceforth be referred to as the ‘claimant’.

¶31

The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the accidental injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 07.07.2011 at about 2 p.m near Gundagathi village in Harapanahalli Taluk. When the claimant was proceeding on his vehicle bearing registration No.KA-17/X-0092 from Alaganchikere Road towards Gundagathi village, a bus bearing registration No.KA-17/B7833 (henceforth referred to as the ‘offending vehicle’) came from the opposite direction and dashed against him.

¶32

The claim petition was contested by the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. They denied the averments made in the claim petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver and

¶33

¶34

the claimant sustaining grievous injuries in the accident. The driver and the owner contended that the insurer was liable to pay compensation as the first respondent had valid driving licence to drive the offending vehicle and insurance policy in respect of the offending vehicle was in force as on the date of the accident. The insurer contended that there was violation of conditions of permit by the owner as he had allowed the offending vehicle to be plied beyond the route permit limits and hence, it was not liable to pay compensation.

¶35

The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, awarded a sum of Rs.68,000/- as compensation with interest at 7% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of actual realization and held that the driver and owner of the offending vehicle were jointly and severally responsible to pay the compensation and accordingly, directed the owner of the offending vehicle to pay the compensation since the offending vehicle did not have specific permit or proper endorsement to ply the

¶36

¶37

offending vehicle within the limits of Gundagathi village in Harapanahalli Taluk. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the owner of the offending vehicle was liable to pay the compensation. The petition against the insurer was dismissed by the Tribunal.

¶38

The owner, since deceased is represented by his legal representatives in this appeal and they contend that the vehicle in question was covered by a policy of insurance and even if the vehicle was plied in violation of the permit conditions, the liability to pay the compensation is upon the insurer in view of the judgment of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Yallavva and another reported in 2020 (2) KCCR 1405 as well as the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Amrit Paul Singh and another vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited and Others reported in (2018) 7 SCC 558. Alternatively they contended that the compensation awarded was excessive.

¶39

¶40

Learned counsel for the insurer – respondent

¶41

No.3 herein would not dispute the fact that the insurer is not exonerated from the liability to pay compensation on the ground that the permit condition is violated in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court and the Judgment of the Apex Court referred above. In that view of the matter, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal shall be paid by the insurer and not the owner of the offending vehicle. In so far as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, having regard to the fracture of lateral wall and medial wall of left orbit and other injuries sustained by the claimant, the compensation awarded is just and reasonable and does not warrant interference.

¶42

Hence, this appeal is allowed in part and the impugned Judgment and Award is modified to the extent that the compensation and interest awarded by the Tribunal shall be paid by the insurer – respondent No.3 herein and it shall be entitled to recover the same from the

¶43

¶44

appellants herein, who are the legal representatives of the owner of the offending vehicle.

¶45

The insurer shall deposit the compensation with interest as awarded by the Tribunal within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Judgment.

¶46

The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to

¶47

the Tribunal for passing appropriate orders.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

sma

Hanumantha Sa Ladwa v. Channaveerappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanumantha Sa Ladwa v. Channaveerappa

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

Sri S N Anantharam Vs Sri R Girish

The Manager United India Insurance Vs Prema

Shrinidhi Vs the Branch Manager Icici Lambard

The Divisional Manager Vs Sri Eshappa

The Divisional Manager Vs Smt Geetha

Sri. V.N. Ramamurthy Vs the Honble Arbitrator (NH-7)