Partly allowed

The Manager v. Munni

Karnataka HC8 Jul 2021MFA/959/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal, filed by an insurance company under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenged a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The High Court observed that while the direction to pay first and recover later was correct per Supreme Court precedent, the 9% interest rate was too high.

What did the court decide?

The award is modified to reduce the rate of interest payable to claimants from 9% p.a. to 6% p.a.

The Manager Vs Munni — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^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.959 OF 2019 (MV-D)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

The Manager Bharathi AXA GIC Ltd., Pride Quadra, No.30 3rd Floor, Bellary Road, Hebbal, Bengaluru-560057 Now rep by its The Manager Bharathi AXA GIC Ltd., Hosto Centre, 1st Floor No.43, Millers Road, Vasanth Nagar Opp. Imperial Hotel, Bangalore-560052.

¶11

... Appellant

¶12

(By Sri. Pradeep B., Advocate)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Munni,

¶15

W/o Late. Afiuddin Aged about 36 years.

¶16

Naazreen D/o Late Afiuddin aged about 13 years.

¶17

Fiza D/o Late Afiuddin Aged about 11 years.

¶18

¶19

Sahil S/o Late. Afiuddin Aged about 9 years.

¶20

Shifa D/o Late. Afiuddin Aged about 4 years since respondents 2 to 5 are minors rep. their Mother & Natural Guardian Smt. Munni. All are r/at: Sarojamma Kalyana Mantapa Mallasandra, Bengaluru. Permanent Address: Badasiya Ansh Village Gouramayi Khade, Budaun Dist: Budan, Uttar Pradesh

¶21

Aruna E W/o Jayasimha R No.731, Lakshminarasimha swamy Nilaya Pipe Line Road, 12th Main 4th Cross, Mallasandra Bengaluru-560 057

¶22

Revanth N. S/o Narayanappa aged about 23 years R/at No.12, Lakshmivenkateshwara Layout 4th cross Road, Near Lakshmi Temple Chikkabanavara, Bengaluru.

¶23

... Respondents

¶24

(By Sri. H.Mohammed Aslam, Advocate for R1: R2-R5 are minors Rep. by R1: R6 served and unrepresented)

¶25

¶26

This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act against the judgment and award dated: 17.11.2018 passed in MVC No. 5267/2016 on the file of the III Additional Judge, Court of Small causes, Bengaluru (SCCH-18) awarding a compensation of

¶27

¶28

Rs.17,42000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realizastion.

¶29

This M.F.A. coming on for orders, this day, Alok Aradhe J ., delivered the following:

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) is filed by the Appellant-Insurance company challenging the Judgment and award dated 17.11.2018 passed in MVC No.5267/2016 by the III Additional District Judge and Court of Small Causes and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bengaluru, wherein the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act was allowed and respondent No.2 therein being entitled to pay compensation of Rs.17,42,000/- along with interest @ of 9% per annum.

¶32

Learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the Tribunal has grossly erred in directing the insurance company to the pay the amount of compensation and then to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. It is further submitted that

¶33

¶34

interest at 9% p.a. awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on higher side and requires to be scaled down.

¶35

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for

¶36

the respondents-claimants has supported the judgment and award passed by the Claims Tribunal.

¶37

We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

¶38

Issue with regard to directing the Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation and to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle, in case of breach of policy condition is not in dispute and the same is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Paul Singh and another Vs. Tata AIG Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd., and Others reported in AIR 2018 SC 2662. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly directed the Insurance company to pay the amount and granted liberty to it to recover the same from the owner.

¶39

¶40

However, we find that the rate of interest at 9% p.a. is on higher side and the same is scaled down to 6% p.a. The amount of compensation amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal shall be payable to the claimants with interest @ of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment passed

¶41

by the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶42

Amount in deposit if any, to be transmitted to the

¶43

claims Tribunal for disbursement to the claimants.

¶44

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

The Manager v. Munni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Manager v. Munni

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

Kum Surekha Vs Cholamandalam Insurance Company Limited

Sri. Divakar.J Vs Mr. Guruprasad Dinakar