Dismissed

The Manager United India Insurance v. Prema

Karnataka HC4 Dec 2020MFA/5019/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Miscellaneous First Appeal challenged the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's order directing the insurer to pay and recover compensation from the owner for a goods vehicle accident. The High Court dismissed the appeal, relying on Full Bench precedents establishing insurer liability in such cases.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed. The claimant payees are entitled to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, with directions to transmit the deposit.

The Manager United India Insurance Vs Prema — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5019 OF 2013 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, PRABHU BUILDING, MAIN ROAD, PUTTUR, REPRESENTED BY IT’S MANAGER NOW REPRESENTED BY IT’S ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER SANDEEP KUMAR REGIONAL OFFICE, KRISHI BHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560001.

¶9

... APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. L.SREEKANTA RAO, ADVOCATE (THROUGH VC))

¶11

AND:

¶12

PREMA

¶13

W/O LATE NEMANA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶14

SUJATHA

¶15

D/O NEMANNA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS

¶16

GANESHA

¶17

S/O LATE NEMANNA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS

¶18

¶19

4. MUTHAMMA

¶20

W/O LATE NEMANNA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

¶21

ALL ARE R/A PULIPAJE HOUSE PUDUVETTU VILLAGE, BELTHANGADY TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574214.

¶22

JARAPPA GOWDA

¶23

S/O KOTI GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT MAKALA HOUSE, CHIBIDRE VILLAGE, BELTHANGADY TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574214.

¶24

… RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. P. KARUNAKARA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4;

¶26

SRI. B.V.KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.5)

¶27

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:28.07.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.761/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, BELTHANGADY, D.K., AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.2,78,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL PAYMENT.

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

Though this appeal is listed for admission, as records are received from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belthangady, it is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶32

This appeal is filed by the insurer challenging the Judgment and Award passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belthangady, D.K. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in MVC No.761/2009.

¶33

Respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein shall henceforth

¶34

be referred to as ‘claimants’ while the appellant and respondent No.5 herein shall henceforth be referred to as the ‘insurer’ and ‘owner’ respectively of the offending vehicle involved in the accident.)

¶35

The claim petition discloses that on 07.02.2009 at about 10:00 a.m., Mr. Nemanna Gowda was travelling in a pick up Jeep bearing registration No.KA-21-A-1134

¶36

¶37

(henceforth referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’) from Kakkinje to Neria. When the pick up Jeep reached Kakkinje, Chibidre village of Belthangady Taluk, he was thrown out of the pick up Jeep due to the rash and negligent driving of its driver. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries and was taken to Primary Health Centre, Belthangady, where Doctors declared that he was not alive. Claimants were the legal representatives of the deceased Nemanna Gowda, who claimed that the deceased was a 52 year old man and a mason and an agriculturist by profession earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The claimants, therefore, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

¶38

The owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle contested the claim petition. The owner denied the averments made in the petition and contended that the gross negligence of the deceased resulted in accident and alternatively pleaded that there was contributory

¶39

¶40

negligence on the part of the deceased in causing the accident. He further contended that the offending vehicle was comprehensively insured with respondent No.2 - insurer and driver had valid licence as on the date of the accident and hence, the insurer was liable to indemnify the award to be passed by the Tribunal.

¶41

The insurer contended that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid licence and that the deceased was traveling in a goods vehicle and thereby violated the permit and policy conditions. It, therefore, contended that it is not liable to pay the compensation.

¶42

The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, allowed the claim petition in part and awarded a sum of Rs.2,78,000/- as compensation with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment. In so far as the liability to pay the compensation is concerned, the Tribunal held that the insurer is liable to pay the compensation and recover it from the owner of the offending vehicle in view of the Judgment of the Apex

¶43

¶44

Court in the case of Kusumlatha and others vs. Sathbir

¶45

and others reported in 2011 (3) SCC 646.

¶46

It is this order of the Tribunal fastening the liability on the insurer of the offending vehicle to pay and recover the compensation from its owner which is challenged in this appeal.

¶47

Learned counsel for the appellant - insurer contended that the vehicle in question was a goods vehicle and that the deceased was traveling as a gratuitous passenger in the goods vehicle. He contended that the Tribunal having once recorded a finding that the deceased was not traveling along with the goods ought not to have directed the insurer to pay and recover the compensation, but it must have rejected the claim petition or must have fastened the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle. It is noticed that the Tribunal recorded a finding that the deceased was traveling in the goods vehicle and that there

¶48

was no evidence to indicate that the deceased was traveling along with the goods. However, the Tribunal held

¶49

¶50

that it is for the insurer to pay and recover the compensation. It is now well settled by the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co., Ltd., vs Yallavva reported in 2 020(2) KCCR 1405 that the insurer cannot escape liability on the ground that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle and it is for the insurer to pay and recover the compensation.

¶51

In that view of the matter, there is no merit in this appeal and the appeal is dismissed .

¶52

The amount in deposit is directed to be transmitted to the Tribunal for necessary orders.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

sma

The Manager United India Insurance v. Prema

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Manager United India Insurance v. Prema

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Laxmamma Vs the Manager

Sri Gangi Reddy Vs P Sreenivasulu Reddy

Praxair India Private Limited Vs Inox Air Products Private Limited

The Branch Manager Vs Ningamma

D Madhavamurthy S/O Late v G Doraiswamy Vs R Govindaswamy Since Dead by His Lrs

Hanumantha Naika Vs Sri Pattabi Ramegowda H a