Dismissed

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri. Manjunatha

Karnataka HC1 Dec 2020MFA/6387/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal was filed by an insurer challenging a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The court held that the driver validly held a license for the transport vehicle involved and dismissed the insurer's appeal, affirming their liability to pay compensation.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. is dismissed, and the compromise order of the Tribunal is upheld.

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri. Manjunatha — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

¶6

M.F.A. NO.6387 OF 2013 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Corporate and Regional Office, Oriental House, P.B.No.7037, A-2527, Asif Ali Road, New Delhi – 110 002.

¶9

Represented by The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, S.S. Complex, Subhash Square, Hassan.

¶10

Represented by its The Asst. Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office, Leo Shopping Complex, No.44/45 Residency Road, Bangalore – 560 025. …Appellant

¶11

(By Sri Poonacha M.V., Advocate)

¶12

¶13

AND:

¶14

Sri.Manjunatha, S/o Subbaiah, Aged 22 years, R/at Young India Company, Madenuru Grama, Shanthigrama Hobli, Hassan Taluk – 573 201.

¶15

Sri.D.Vijaykumar, S/o late Devaraj, Aged about 45 years, R/at B Katihalli, Gavenahalli Post,

¶16

Hassan Taluk – 573 201. ...Respondents

¶17

(By Sri.K.Mahesh for Sri.Ravishankar, Advocates for R1; R2 held sufficient)

¶18

¶19

This M.F.A. is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act against the Judgment and Award dated 11.03.2013 passed in MVC No.132/2012 on the file of the Prl. District Judge and Member MACT – 1, Hassan, awarding a compensation of Rs.57,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a.

¶20

This M.F.A. coming Admission this day, the Court delivered the following:

¶21

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

This appeal is filed by the insurer challenging the liability imposed upon it to pay the compensation awarded by the Principal District Judge and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hassan (henceforth referred to as the ‘Tribunal) in MVC No.132/2009.

¶24

Though this appeal is listed for admission, since the records of the Trial Court are received, the appeal is taken up for final disposal, with the consent of the parties

¶25

For the sake of brevity and convenience, the parties shall henceforth be referredto, as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶26

The claim petition would disclose that on 07.05.2011 at about 3.45 p.m., the claimant and his uncle were traveling on a motorcycle bearing registration

¶27

¶28

No.KA-53-J-9428 on the left side of the road from Madenuru to Hassan, a vehicle bearing registration No. KA-13-A-8184 (henceforth referred as offending vehicle) dashed against their motorcycle. As a result, the claimant and his uncle sustained grievous injuries and were shifted to Government Hospital, Hassan and the claimant was shifted to Nimhans Hospital, Bangalore where he was treated as an inpatient. The claimant contended that he was a Manager in a firm by name 'Young India' at Shimoga and was earning a sum of Rs. 12,000/- per month and due to the accident, he could not eke out his livelihood. He contended that he spent a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses and therefore filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

¶29

¶30

The insurer disputed the accident and

¶31

objected the claim petition. It contended that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a license to drive a transport vehicle.

¶32

Based on these rival contentions, the claim

¶33

petition was set down for trial.

¶34

The claimant was examined as PW.1 and he marked documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. The Development Officer of the insurer was examined as RW1 and he marked Ex.R1 to Ex.R3.

¶35

The Tribunal considered the income of the claimant at a sum of Rs.12,000/-. The Tribunal noticed that the claimant must have spent Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses though he had not marked any document in that regard and had not examined any Doctor to prove the disability caused to him. The Tribunal awarded the following compensation:

¶36

¶37

Heads under which compensation awarded	Amount in Rupees
1. Towardspain and suffering	15,000.00
2. Towards medical expenses	2,000.00
3. Towards fracture of bone and oedema	30,000.00
4. Towards conveyance charges, which includes food and nourishment charges	5,000.00
5. Towards loss of comforts	5,000.00
Total	57,000.00

¶38

Insofar as the liability to pay the

¶39

compensation to the claimant, the Tribunal considered the contention of the insurer that the driver of the offending vehicle held a license to drive a light motor vehicle and not a transport vehicle. The Tribunal relied upon the decision laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ishwar Chandra Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2007) 10 SCC 650 and in the case of

¶40

National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Gh.Mohd. Wani reported in 2004 ACJ 1424 (J&K) and held that the

¶41

¶42

driver of the offending vehicle possessed a valid and effective driving license to drive the light motor vehicle. The Tribunal has considered that as per Section 2(21) of the Act, the unladen weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road roller, did not exceed 7,500 kilograms and so also in the present case, the unladen weight of the offending vehicle did not exceed 7500 kilograms and held that the driver of the offending vehicle did possess a driving license to drive a transport vehicle.

¶43

The Tribunal therefore, held that the insurer is liable to pay the compensation to the claimant and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.

¶44

The insurer is in appeal and contends that if

¶45

the driver of the offending vehicle does not possess an authorization to drive a transport vehicle, it was exonerated from any liability to pay any compensation. This question is no longer res-integra and is fully covered by the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Co.

¶46

¶47

Ltd reported in AIR 2017 SC 3668. Hence , the insurer is liable to pay the compensation determined by the Tribunal.

¶48