Partly allowed

Shrinidhi v. the Branch Manager Icici Lambard

Karnataka HC4 Dec 2020MFA/6365/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Students injured in a school bus accident sought compensation. The court held that the statutory appeal threshold did not bar a challenge to liability and that absence of a fitness certificate did not exonerate the insurer. It partly allowed the appeals, shifting liability from the driver and owner to the insurer.

What did the court decide?

Liability shifted to the insurer, directed to deposit compensation and interest within one month of receiving a certified copy; refund of the owner's deposit directed after verification.

Shrinidhi Vs the Branch Manager Icici Lambard — 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.6367 OF 2013(MV) C/W

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6362 OF 2013(MV-D), MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6363 OF 2013(MV), MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6364 OF 2013(MV-I), MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6365 OF 2013(MV-I), MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6366 OF 2013(MV), MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6368 OF 2013(MV-I), MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6369 OF 2013(MV-I), MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6370 OF 2013(MV), MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6371 OF 2013(MV) & MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6372 OF 2013(MV)

¶8

IN MFA 6367/2013:

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SHRINIDHI

¶11

S/O NARASAPPA, AGED 33 YEARS, DRIVER OF SWARAJ MAZDA SCHOOL BUS, BEARING REG. NO.KA-03/9276,

¶12

R/AT KABBALA CAMP, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577213.

¶13

HEAD MASTER SRI. VIDYA LAXMI CONVENT, OWNER OF SWARAJ MAZDA SCHOOL BUS BEARING REG. NO.KA-03/9276,

¶14

¶15

R/O KABBALA CAMP, CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577213 (REPRESENTED BY SWETHA ACHARI)

¶16

... APPELLANTS

¶17

(BY SRI. PRASAD.B.S, ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

THE BRANCH MANAGER ICICI LAMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE

¶20

OPP. HIGH SCHOOL GROUND, P.B.ROAD, DAVANAGERE-577213.

¶21

KUMARI. MANAS

¶22

D/O JAYADEVAIAH, AGED 11 YEARS, STUDENT, SINCE MINOR REP. BY HER MOTHER AS NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. SHOBHA W/O JAYADEVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, COOLIE WORK, R/O DODDAGHATTA VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577001.

¶23

… RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 (THROUGH VC); RESPONDENT NO.2 IS SERVED, BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

20.04.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.102/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, CHANNAGIRI, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.8,500/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶28

IN MFA NO.6362/2013:

¶29

BETWEEN:

¶30

SHRINIDHI S/O NARASAPPA, AGED 33 YEARS, DRIVER OF SWARAJ MAZDA SCHOOL BUS, BEARING REG. NO.KA-03/9276, R/O KABBALA CAMP, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577213.

¶31

HEAD MASTER SRI. VIDYA LAXMI CONVENT, OWNER OF SWARAJ MAZDA SCHOOL BUS BEARING REG. NO.KA-03/9276, R/AT KABBALA CAMP, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577213 (REP. BY SMT.SWETHA ACHARI, 39 YEARS)

¶32

... APPELLANTS

¶33

(BY SRI. PRASAD.B.S, ADVOCATE)

¶34

AND:

¶35

THE BRANCH MANAGER ICICI LAMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,

¶36

BRANCH OFFICE

¶37

¶38

OPP. HIGH SCHOOL GROUND, P.B.ROAD, DAVANAGERE-577213.

¶39

R.NAGARAJ S/O RAVIKUMAR, AGED 06 YEARS, STUDENT, SINCE MINOR REP. BY HIS FATHER AS NATURAL GUARDIAN RAVIKUMAR, S/O NAGARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, BARBER WORK, R/O DODDAGHATTA VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577213.

¶40

… RESPONDENTS

¶41

[BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 (THROUGH VC); RESPONDENT NO.2 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED]

¶42

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:20.04.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.97/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, CHANNAGIRI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.7,500/WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶43

IN MFA NO.6363/2013:

¶44

BETWEEN:

¶45

SHRINIDHI S/O NARASAPPA, AGED 33 YEARS,

¶46

¶47

DRIVER OF SWARAJ MAZDA SCHOOL BUS, BEARING REG. NO.KA-03/9276, R/O KABBALA CAMP, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577213.

¶48

HEAD MASTER SRI. VIDYA LAXMI CONVENT, OWNER OF SWARAJ MAZDA SCHOOL BUS BEARING REG. NO.KA-03/9276, R/O KABBALA CAMP, CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577213 (REP. BY SMT.SWETHA ACHARI, 44 YEARS)

¶49

... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. PRASAD.B.S, ADVOCATE)

¶50

AND:

¶51

THE BRANCH MANAGER ICICI LAMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE

¶52

OPP. HIGH SCHOOL GROUND, P.B.ROAD, DAVANAGERE-577213.

¶53

KUMARI. LAXMI D/O RAVIKUMAR, AGED 05 YEARS, STUDENT, SINCE MINOR REP. BY HIS FATHER AS NATURAL GUARDIAN RAVIKUMAR, S/O NAGARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, BARBER WORK, R/O DODDAGHATTA VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577001. … RESPONDENTS

¶54

¶55

[BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 (THROUGH VC); RESPONDENT NO.2 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED]

¶56

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:20.04.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.98/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, CHANNAGIRI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.7,500/WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶57

IN MFA NO.6364/2013:

¶58

BETWEEN:

¶59

SHRINIDHI S/O NARASAPPA, AGED 33 YEARS, DRIVER OF SWARAJ MAZDA SCHOOL BUS, BEARING REG. NO.KA-03/9276, R/O KABBALA CAMP, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577213.

¶60

HEAD MASTER SRI. VIDYA LAXMI CONVENT, OWNER OF SWARAJ MAZDA SCHOOL BUS BEARING REG. NO.KA-03/9276, R/O KABBALA CAMP, CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577213 REP. BY SMT.SWETHA ACHARI, AGED 34 YEARS

¶61

... APPELLANTS

¶62

(BY SRI. PRASAD.B.S, ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT)

¶63

¶64

AND:

¶65

THE BRANCH MANAGER ICICI LAMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE OPP. HIGH SCHOOL GROUND, P.B.ROAD, DAVANAGERE-577213.

¶66

KUMARI.NAGAMMA D/O THIMMARAYA, AGED 09 YEARS, STUDENT, SINCE MINOR REP. BY HER MOTHER AS NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. VARALAXMI, W/O THIMMARAYA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, COOLIE WORK, R/O DODDAGHATTA VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577001.

¶67

… RESPONDENTS

¶68

[BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 (THROUGH VC); RESPONDENT NO.2 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED]

¶69

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:20.04.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.99/2012 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, CHANNAGIRI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.9,500/WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶70

¶71

IN MFA NO.6365/2013:

¶72

BETWEEN:

¶73

SHRINIDHI S/O NARASAPPA, AGED 33 YEARS, DRIVER OF SWARAJ MAZDA SCHOOL BUS, BEARING REG. NO.KA-03/9276, R/AT KABBALA CAMP, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577213.

¶74

HEAD MASTER SRI. VIDYA LAXMI CONVENT, OWNER OF SWARAJ MAZDA SCHOOL BUS BEARING REG. NO.KA-03/9276, R/O KABBALA CAMP, CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577213 (REPRESENTED BY SWETHA ACHARI)

¶75

... APPELLANTS

¶76

(BY SRI. PRASAD.B.S, ADVOCATE)

¶77

AND:

¶78

THE BRANCH MANAGER ICICI LAMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE

¶79

OPP. HIGH SCHOOL GROUND, P.B.ROAD, DAVANAGERE-577213.

¶80

MOHAMMED AZEEZ

¶81

S/O DADAPEER, AGED 6 YEARS, STUDENT, SINCE MINOR REP. BY HER FATHER AS

¶82

¶83

NATURAL GUARDIAN DADAPEER, S/O ZAMALSAB, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, COOLIE WORK, R/O DODDAGHATTA VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577001.

¶84

… RESPONDENTS

¶85

[BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 (THROUGH VC); RESPONDENT NO.2 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED]

¶86

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:20.04.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.100/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, CHANNAGIRI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.7,500/WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶87

IN MFA NO.6366/2013:

¶88

BETWEEN:

¶89

SHRINIDHI

¶90

S/O NARASAPPA, AGED 33 YEARS, DRIVER OF SWARAJ MAZDA SCHOOL BUS, BEARING REG. NO.KA-03/9276, R/O KABBALA CAMP, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577213.

¶91

HEAD MASTER SRI. VIDYA LAXMI CONVENT, OWNER OF SWARAJ MAZDA SCHOOL BUS

¶92

¶93

BEARING REG. NO.KA-03/9276, R/O KABBALA VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577213 (REPRESENTED BY SWETHA ACHARI)

¶94

... APPELLANTS

¶95

(BY SRI. PRASAD.B.S, ADVOCATE)

¶96

AND:

¶97

THE BRANCH MANAGER

¶98

ICICI LAMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE

¶99

OPP. HIGH SCHOOL GROUND, P.B.ROAD, DAVANAGERE-577213.

¶100

KUMARI ANU, D/O THIMMARAYA, AGED 7 YEARS, STUDENT, SINCE MINOR REP. BY HER MOTHER AS NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. VARALAXMI, W/O THIMMARAYA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, COOLIE WORK, R/O DODDAGHATTA VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577001.

¶101

… RESPONDENTS

¶102

[BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 (THROUGH VC); RESPONDENT NO.2 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED]

¶103

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

¶104

¶105

DATED:20.04.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.101/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, CHANNAGIRI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.6,000/WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶106

IN MFA NO.6368/2013:

¶107

BETWEEN:

¶108

SHRINIDHI S/O NARASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, DRIVER OF SWARAJ MAZDA SCHOOL BUS, BEARING REG. NO.KA-03/9276, R/O KABBALA CAMP, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577213.

¶109

HEAD MASTER SRI. VIDYA LAXMI CONVENT, OWNER OF SWARAJ MAZDA SCHOOL BUS BEARING REG. NO.KA-03/9276, R/O KABBALA CAMP, CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577213 (REP. BY SWETHA ACHARI, 34 YEARS)

¶110

... APPELLANTS

¶111

(BY SRI. PRASAD.B.S, ADVOCATE)

¶112

AND:

¶113

THE BRANCH MANAGER ICICI LAMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE OPP. HIGH SCHOOL GROUND, P.B.ROAD, DAVANAGERE-577213.

¶114

¶115

KUM. MANYA D/O JAYADEVAIAH, AGED 6 YEARS, STUDENT, SINCE MINOR REP. BY HER MOTHER AS NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT.SHOBHA, W/O JAYADEVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, COOLIE WORK, R/O DODDAGHATTA VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577001.

¶116

… RESPONDENTS

¶117

[BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 (THROUGH VC); RESPONDENT NO.2 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED]

¶118

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:20.04.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.103/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, CHANNAGIRI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.7,500/WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶119

IN MFA NO.6369/2013:

¶120

BETWEEN:

¶121

SHRINIDHI

¶122

S/O NARASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, DRIVER OF SWARAJ MAZDA SCHOOL BUS, BEARING REG. NO.KA-03/9276, R/O KABBALA CAMP, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577213.

¶123

¶124

HEAD MASTER SRI. VIDYA LAXMI CONVENT, OWNER OF SWARAJ MAZDA SCHOOL BUS BEARING REG. NO.KA-03/9276, R/O KABBALA CAMP, CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577213 (REP. BY SMT.SWETHA ACHARI, AGED 34 YEARS)

¶125

... APPELLANTS

¶126

(BY SRI. PRASAD.B.S, ADVOCATE)

¶127

AND:

¶128

THE BRANCH MANAGER ICICI LAMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE

¶129

OPP. HIGH SCHOOL GROUND, P.B.ROAD, DAVANAGERE-577213.

¶130

ILIYAZ S/O ANSAR ALI, AGED 7 YEARS, STUDENT, SINCE MINOR REP. BY HIS FATHER AS NATURAL GUARDIAN ANSAR ALI, S/O SHEKHA AHMED SAB, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, COOLIE WORK, R/O DODDAGHATTA VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577001.

¶131

… RESPONDENTS

¶132

[BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 (THROUGH VC);

¶133

¶134

RESPONDENT NO.2 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED]

¶135

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:20.04.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.104/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, CHANNAGIRI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.8,500/WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶136

IN MFA NO.6370/2013:

¶137

BETWEEN:

¶138

SHRINIDHI S/O NARASAPPA, AGED 32 YEARS, DRIVER OF SWARAJ MAZDA SCHOOL BUS, BEARING REG. NO.KA-03/9276, R/AT KABBALA CAMP, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577213.

¶139

HEAD MASTER SRI. VIDYA LAXMI CONVENT, OWNER OF SWARAJ MAZDA SCHOOL BUS BEARING REG. NO.KA-03/9276, R/O KABBALA CAMP, CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577213 (REPTD. BY SWETHA ACHARI)

¶140

... APPELLANTS

¶141

(BY SRI. PRASAD B.S., ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT)

¶142

¶143

AND:

¶144

THE BRANCH MANAGER ICICI LAMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE OPP. HIGH SCHOOL GROUND, P.B.ROAD, DAVANAGERE-577213.

¶145

KUMARI SANGEETHA

¶146

D/O NAGENDRAPPA, AGED 07 YEARS, STUDENT, SINCE MINOR REP. BY HER FATHER AS NATURAL GUARDIAN NAGENDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, COOLIE WORK, R/O DODDAGHATTA VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577213.

¶147

… RESPONDENTS

¶148

[BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 (THROUGH VC); RESPONDENT NO.2 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED]

¶149

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:20.04.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.105/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, CHANNAGIRI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.7,500/WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶150

¶151

IN MFA NO.6371/2013:

¶152

BETWEEN:

¶153

SHRINIDHI S/O NARASAPPA, AGED 32 YEARS, DRIVER OF SWARAJ MAZDA SCHOOL BUS, BEARING REG. NO.KA-03/9276, R/O KABBALA CAMP, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577213.

¶154

HEAD MASTER SRI. VIDYA LAXMI CONVENT, OWNER OF SWARAJ MAZDA SCHOOL BUS BEARING REG. NO.KA-03/9276, R/O KABBALA CAMP, CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577213 (REP. BY SWETHA ACHARI)

¶155

... APPELLANTS

¶156

(BY SRI. PRASAD.B.S, ADVOCATE )

¶157

AND:

¶158

THE BRANCH MANAGER ICICI LAMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE

¶159

OPP. HIGH SCHOOL GROUND, P.B.ROAD, DAVANAGERE-577213.

¶160

KUMARI. MARZIYA TASLIM, D/O SHAFIULLA, AGED 10 YEARS, STUDENT, SINCE MINOR REP. BY HER MOTHER AS NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. SAHEERA BANU,

¶161

¶162

W/O SHAFIULLA, AGED 30 YEARS, COOLIE WORK, R/O DODDAGHATTA VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577001.

¶163

… RESPONDENTS

¶164

[BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 (THROUGH VC); RESPONDENT NO.2 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED]

¶165

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:20.04.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.107/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, CHANNAGIRI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.8,500/WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶166

IN MFA NO.6372/2013:

¶167

BETWEEN:

¶168

SHRINIDHI

¶169

S/O NARASAPPA, AGED 32 YEARS, DRIVER OF SWARAJ MAZDA SCHOOL BUS, BEARING REG. NO.KA-03/9276, R/AT KABBALA CAMP, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577213.

¶170

HEAD MASTER SRI. VIDYA LAXMI CONVENT, OWNER OF SWARAJ MAZDA SCHOOL BUS BEARING REG. NO.KA-03/9276,

¶171

¶172

R/O KABBALA CAMP, CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577213 (REPRESENTED BY SWETHA ACHARI)

¶173

... APPELLANTS

¶174

(BY SRI. PRASAD.B.S, ADVOCATE )

¶175

AND:

¶176

THE BRANCH MANAGER ICICI LAMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE,

¶177

OPP. HIGH SCHOOL GROUND, P.B.ROAD, DAVANAGERE-577213.

¶178

MOHAMMED ZUBER

¶179

S/O DADAPEER, AGED 5 YEARS, STUDENT, SINCE MINOR REP. BY HIS FATHER AS NATURAL GUARDIAN DADAPEER, S/O ZAMALSAB, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, COOLIE WORK, R/O DODDAGHATTA VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577001.

¶180

… RESPONDENTS

¶181

[BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 (THROUGH VC); RESPONDENT NO.2 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED]

¶182

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:20.04.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.108/2012 ON THE

¶183

¶184

FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, CHANNAGIRI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.9,000/WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶185

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

¶186

J U D G M E N T

¶187

Though these appeals are listed for admission, they are taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶188

All these appeals are filed by the driver and owner of the school bus challenging the Judgment and Award passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Channagiri (‘Tribunal’ for short) in MVC Nos.97/2012, 98/2012 to 105/2012, 107/2012 and 108/2012.

¶189

Appellant Nos.1 and 2, who are common in all these appeals, will henceforth be referred to as the ‘driver’ and ‘owner’ respectively of the offending bus involved in the accident. Respondent No.1, who is common in all

¶190

¶191

these appeals, will henceforth be referred to as the ‘insurer’ and the respective respondent No.2 in these appeals will henceforth be referred to as the ‘claimant’.

¶192

In all the claim petitions, claimants were students traveling in a school bus bearing registration No.KA-03-9276 (henceforth referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’) from their respective villages to the School situate at Kabbala village on 19.03.2012. At about 10:05 a.m. when the offending vehicle was proceeding between Kabbala and Doddaghatta village on DavanagereChannagiri road, the driver of the offending vehicle drove it in a rash and negligent manner and since he could not control the bus / offending vehicle, it toppled on the right side of the road causing injuries to the claimants. All the claimants were shifted to C.G. Hospital, Davanagere, for treatment and that each one of them claimed that they had spent substantial sums of money for treatment. Hence, separate claim petitions were filed by each of them

¶193

¶194

under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation.

¶195

The claim petitions were resisted by the owner, driver and insurer of the offending vehicle. The owner and driver filed common objections, whereas the insurer filed separate objections. The owner contended that at the time of the accident, a vehicle loaded with sugar cane protruding two to three feet on either side of the vehicle, approached the offending vehicle from the opposite direction. In order to avoid colliding with the on-coming vehicle, the driver of the offending vehicle steered it away and lost control. The owner contended that as a result, some injuries, which are simple in nature, were caused to the students / claimants and that they had attended the School after first aid.

¶196

In so far as the insurer is concerned, it contended that the seating capacity of the offending vehicle was 18 + 1 while at the time of the accident, about 30 to 40 students were traveling in the offending vehicle

¶197

¶198

and therefore, it contended that the offending vehicle was carrying more than the permitted seating capacity and also it did not possess a Fitness Certificate.

¶199

The father of the respective claimant in MVC

¶200

Nos.97 and 98 of 2012 was examined as PW.1, who marked Exs.P1 to P9; the father of the respective claimant in MVC Nos.100 and 108 of 2012 was examined as PW.2, who marked Exs.P10 to 15; the father of the claimant in MVC No.105/2012 was examined as PW.3, who marked Exs.P16 and P17; the mother of claimants in MVC Nos.102 and 103 of 2012 was examined as PW.4, who marked Exs.P18 to P22; the mother of the respective claimant in MVC Nos.99 and 101 of 2012 was examined as PW.5, who marked Exs.P23 to 26; the father of the claimant in MVC No.104/2012 was examined as PW.6, who marked Exs.P27 and P28 and the mother of the claimant in MVC No.107/2012 was examined as PW.7, who marked Exs.P29 and P30. The officer of the insurer was examined as RW.1 and he marked Exs.R1 to R3. The driver and owner of the

¶201

¶202

offending vehicle were examined as RW.2 and RW.3 respectively and they marked Exs.R4 to R21.

¶203

The Tribunal considering the evidence on record, awarded the following amounts as global

¶204

compensation to each of the claimants.

¶205

Sl.No.	Case No.	Amount
1	MVC No.97/2012	Rs.7,500/-
2	MVC No.98/2012	Rs.7,500/-
3	MVC No.99/2012	Rs.9,500/-
4	MVC No.100/2012	Rs.7,500/-
5	MVC No.101/2012	Rs.6,000/-
6	MVC No.102/2012	Rs.8,500/-
7	MVC No.103/2012	Rs.7,500/-
8	MVC No.104/2012	Rs.8,500/-
9	MVC No.105/2012	Rs.7,500/-
10	MVC No.107/2012	Rs.8,500/-
11	MVC No.108/2012	Rs.9,000/-

¶206

In so far as the liability to pay the

¶207

compensation is concerned, the Tribunal considering the evidence of RW.1, officer of the insurer of the offending vehicle, and Ex.R3(a), endorsement in R.C. book, held that the fitness certificate of the offending vehicle had expired

¶208

¶209

on 20.12.2011 and after the accident, the fitness certificate was renewed with effect from 15.05.2012 to 14.05.2013. The Tribunal also noticed that the seating capacity of the offending vehicle was 19 persons including the driver and that there was no evidence placed on record by the insurer that there were more than 19 people traveling in the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. It noticed that the offending vehicle did not carry a fitness certificate and therefore, held that the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation and directed the driver and owner of the offending vehicle to pay the compensation.

¶210

Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment and Award in so far as the liability to pay the compensation is concerned, the driver and owner have filed these appeals.

¶211

I have heard the learned counsel for the respective appellant and the contesting respondent/s in these appeals.

¶212

¶213

Learned counsel for appellants’ relied upon Judgment of Division Bench of this Court in M.F.A No.3424/2006 ( Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. K.V. Chandrashekar Reddy and another disposed of on 19.03.2010 ) and contended that it is for the insurer to ascertain whether the vehicle in question is covered by fitness certificate and if it has chosen to issue a policy notwithstanding the fact that the offending vehicle did not carry a fitness certificate, then it is liable to pay the compensation. As the offending vehicle was covered by a policy of insurance which was in force as on the date of the accident, the insurer cannot be exonerated from its liability to pay the compensation.

¶214

The learned counsel for the insurer contended that the owner cannot file appeals in view of the bar contained in Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the M.V. Act’) as the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is less than Rs.10,000/-.

¶215

¶216

On the contrary, the learned counsel for the owner and driver submitted that the only ground on which liability is fastened by the Tribunal on the driver and owner is that the offending vehicle did not possess a fitness certificate. He contended that Section 173(2) of the M.V. Act bars challenge to the quantum of compensation if it is below Rs.10,000/- and that would not debar the owner and driver from challenging the liability saddled on them.

¶217

It is not in dispute that the accident occurred

¶218

due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. It is also not in dispute that the students / claimants, who were traveling in the offending vehicle suffered injuries which were though simple in nature, yet the claimants had all suffered injuries. The accident must have caused some amount of discomfort, pain and suffering to claimants.

¶219

In that view of the matter, the Tribunal was justified in awarding the compensation to claimants.

¶220

¶221

In so far as the question regarding

¶222

maintainability of these appeals, Section 173(2) of the M.V. Act undoubtedly prohibits filing of an appeal challenging the compensation if it is less than Rs.10,000/-. Section 173 of the M.V. Act reads as under:

¶223

“173. Appeals.—(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), any person aggrieved by an award of a Claims Tribunal may, within ninety days from the date of the award, prefer an appeal to the High Court:

¶224

Provided that no appeal by the person who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall be entertained by the High Court unless he has deposited with it twenty-five thousand rupees or fifty per cent. of the amount so awarded, whichever is less, in the manner directed by the High Court:

¶225

Provided further that the High Court may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of ninety days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time.

¶226

¶227

(2) No appeal shall lie against any award of a Claims Tribunal if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than ten thousand rupees.”

¶228

A similar provision is also found in Section 96

¶229

of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the same is extracted as under:

¶230

“96. Appeal from original decree

¶231

(1) Save where otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie from every decree passed by any Court exercising original jurisdiction to the Court authorized to hear appeals from the decisions of such Court.

¶232

(2) An appeal may lie from an original decree passed ex parte .

¶233

(3) No appeal shall lie from a decree passed by the Court with the consent of parties.

¶234

(4) No appeal shall lie, except on a question of law, from a decree in any suit of the nature cognizable by courts of small causes, when the amount or value of the subject-matter of the

¶235

¶236

original suit does not exceed ten thousand rupees.”

¶237

Under Section 149 of the M.V. Act, the insurer

¶238

is under a duty to satisfy the Judgments and Awards against persons insured in respect of third party risk. In the present case, the offending vehicle is undoubtedly covered by a certificate of insurance issued by the insurer. The only ground on which the liability to pay the compensation is fastened on the owner and driver is that the vehicle in question did not carry a fitness certificate. The requirement to carry a fitness certificate by a vehicle is specified in Section 84 of the M.V. Act and the same is extracted below:

¶239

“84. General conditions attaching to all permits.—The following shall be conditions of every permit—

¶240

(a) that the vehicle to which the permit relates carries valid certificate of fitness issued under section 56 and is at all times so maintained as to comply with the requirements of this Act and the rules made thereunder;

¶241

¶242

(b) that the vehicle to which the permit relates is not driven at a speed exceeding the speed permitted under this Act;

¶243

(c) that any prohibition or restriction imposed and any fares or freight fixed by notification made under section 67 are observed in connection with the vehicle to which the permit relates;

¶244

(d) that the vehicle to which the permit relates is not driven in contravention of the provisions of section 5 or section 113;

¶245

(e) that the provisions of this Act limiting the hours of work of drivers are observed in connection with any vehicle or vehicles to which the permit relates;

¶246

(f) that the provisions of Chapters X, XI and XII so far as they apply to the holder of the permit are observed; and

¶247

(g) that the name and address of the operator shall be painted or otherwise firmly affixed to every vehicle to which the permit relates on the exterior of the body of that vehicle on both sides thereof in a colour or colours vividly contrasting to the colour of the vehicle

¶248

¶249

centered as high as practicable below the window line in bold letters.”

¶250

The Apex Court as well as the Division Bench

¶251

of this Court has held that violation of a permit condition would not exonerate the liability of an insurer to pay the compensation. Even otherwise, when the insurer has chosen to issue a policy of insurance without insisting upon a fitness certificate, the insurer has insured the offending vehicle at its own peril. Therefore, the insurer cannot turn around and contend that it is not liable to pay the compensation.

¶252

Reverting back to the question as to whether

¶253

the appeals filed by the owner and driver are maintainable, the purpose of Section 173(2) of the M.V. Act is apparently to ensure that the victim or the injured or the legal representatives of the deceased are not harassed by an unending litigation over trivial compensation. If only the Tribunal was aware that the insurer cannot be exonerated of its liability to pay the compensation, the Tribunal would

¶254

¶255

have undoubtedly fixed the liability to pay the compensation upon the insurer and not upon the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. As the issue in the present case is regarding the liability to pay the compensation and not the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, Section 173(2) of the M.V. Act will have to be interpreted to mean that no appeal challenging the quantum of compensation less than Rs.10,000/- can be entertained and that an appeal challenging the liability to pay the compensation could still be entertained.

¶256

In this regard, it is worthwhile to refer to the Judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suresh Subray Shet and Others reported in 2009 ACJ 2089. Para No.9 of the said judgment reads as under:

¶257

“It is implicit from the language employed in Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act that

¶258

¶259

when an aggrieved person admits the liability, he cannot question the award if the amount in dispute is less than Rs.10,000/-. In other words, prudent interpretation of sub-section (2) Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act would be to mean that only when the quantum of compensation is questioned, the liability being admitted, there would be a bar for filing an appeal. In the instant case, the insurer has questioned the very liability, on the ground of violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy. Hence, the aggrieved party namely, driver, owner or insurer questions the very liability to pay compensation, he or the insurer, as the case maybe, shall have the right of appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, notwithstanding the amount in dispute is below Rs.10,000. In my view, the cap provided in the above said provision does not serve or benefit the claimant as well as aggrieved common man. It is for the Parliament to take note of the same and bring necessary amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act and do the needful.”

¶260

The appeals filed by the driver and owner of

¶261

the offending vehicle are hence allowed in part and the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal

¶262

¶263

only in so far as it relates to fastening the liability to pay the compensation upon the driver and owner of the offending vehicle is set aside. It is declared that the insurer / respondent No.1 in these appeals is liable to pay the compensation along with interest as awarded by the Tribunal.

¶264

The insurer shall deposit the compensation and interest within a month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Judgment.

¶265

The amount in deposit shall be refunded to the owner after proper verification.

¶266

Sd/JUDGE

¶267

sma

Shrinidhi v. the Branch Manager Icici Lambard

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shrinidhi v. the Branch Manager Icici Lambard

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

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