Partly allowed

The Manager v. Rathnamma

Karnataka HC8 Jul 2021MFA/1241/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court disposed of an appeal filed by an insurance company against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The appellant argued the rider lacked a valid licence. The Court distinguished a Supreme Court precedent and set aside the liability on the insurer, directing it to pay the awarded amount and recover it from the vehicle owner.

What did the court decide?

Insurer directed to pay Rs. 15,48,600 to claimants and recover the amount from the vehicle owner.

The Manager Vs Rathnamma — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 08^TH DAY OF JULY 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶8

M.F.A. NO. 1241 OF 2020 (MV-D)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE MANAGER HDFC ERGO GIC. LTD., 2ND FLOOR, NO.25/1, BUILDING NO.2, SHANKARNARAYANA BUILDING, MG ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶11

... APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

RATHNAMMA W/O LATE. CHIKKAIAHSWAMY AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS.

¶15

PRAGATHI

¶16

D/O LATE. CHIKKAIAHSWAMY AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS.

¶17

SINCE 2ND RESPONDENT IS MINOR WILL BE REPRESENTED BY MOTHER/NG RATHNAMMA I.E., R1.

¶18

¶19

BOTH ARE R/O HULIKERE KOPPALU DUDDA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK & DISTRICT.

¶20

SACHIN M.C. S/O CHENNABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS DOOR NO.2165 KANAKADASANAGARA DATTAGALLI, 3RD STAGE MYSURU CITY HOSAKOTE TALUK.

¶21

... RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI.SATHISH, ADVOCATE FOR R1: R2 REPRESENTED BY R1: NOTICE TO R3 IS D/W V/O DATED:22.04.2021)

¶23

¶24

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:25.10.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.254/2017, ON THE FILE THE II-ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, MANDYA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.15,48,600/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS DEPOSIT.

¶25

¶26

THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J ., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the MV Act

¶29

has been filed by the Insurance Company against the judgment dated 25.10.2019 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MVC No.254/2017, wherein the Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.15,48,600/- to

¶30

the claimants along with interest @ of 6% p.a. on account of the death of Chikkaiahswamy.

¶31

When the matter is taken up today, the

¶32

learned counsel for the appellant submits that the rider of the motor cycle did not possess with the valid and effective driving licence. Therefore, the Claims Tribunal erred in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company.

¶33

¶34

The aforesaid issue is no longer res-integra covered by the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in

¶35

the case of Malla PrakashRao Vs. Malla Janaki & Others reported in (2004) 3 SCC 343.

¶36

In view of the law enunciated, the compensation amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal in MVC No.254/2017 is modified and it is directed that insurance company shall pay the amount of compensation and shall then recover the same from the owner.

¶37

5. Amount in deposit if any, to be transmitted to

¶38

the Claims Tribunal for disbursement to the claimants.

¶39

In the result, the appeal is disposed of .

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

The Manager v. Rathnamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Manager v. Rathnamma

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 Sridevi Vs the Divisional Controller

The Divisional Controller Vs Divya

Sri G Manjunath Vs the State of Karnataka

The Divisional Manager Vs H N Girish

The Manager Vs Munni

Kum Surekha Vs Cholamandalam Insurance Company Limited