Partly allowed

Smt Sunandamma v. Smt Nanjamma

Karnataka HC24 Nov 2022MFA/10115/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged a motor vehicle judgment where liability was fastened on the insured rather than the insurer for an accident involving agricultural coolies. The High Court allowed the appeal in part, modifying the award to fasten statutory liability on the Insurance Company to pay compensation with interest.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award modified; liability fastened on Insurance Company to pay compensation with 6% interest within six weeks.

Smt Sunandamma Vs Smt Nanjamma — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶6

M.F.A.NO.10115/2013 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. SUNANDAMMA, W/O M.R. ASHWATH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT MADANAHALLI VILLAGE, SUGATUR HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK & DISTRICT-563 101.

¶9

...APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI GOPAL KRISHNA N, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SMT. NANJAMMA, W/O SREERAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT MADANAHALLI VILLAGE, SUGATUR HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK & DISTRICT-563 101.

¶13

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., POST BOX OFFICE NO.24, 1^ST FLOOR, BAGALUR MANSION, DODDAPET, KOLAR 563101. REP. BY ITS MANAGER.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI M.R. NANJUNDA GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI S.V. HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶16

¶17

THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.09.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.29/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & CJM, MACT, KOLAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶18

THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶21

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 13.09.2013, passed in M.V.C.No.29/2012, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, MACT, Kolar (‘the Tribunal’ for short).

¶22

The factual matrix of the case of the claimant before

¶23

the Tribunal is that the claimant was proceeding in tractor and trailer along with ragi and the driver of the tractor trailer drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and due to the said act, the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Hence, she made the claim before the Tribunal. In support of her claim she examined herself as P.W.1 and examined the doctor as P.W.2 and got marked the

¶24

¶25

documents at Exs.P.1 to 17. On the other hand, the respondent examined one witness as R.W.1 and got marked the copy of the policy as Ex.R.1. The Tribunal after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record allowed the claim petition in part. However, fastened the liability on the insured and exonerated the liability of the Insurance Company. Hence, the claimant has filed the present appeal.

¶26

The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant is that the Tribunal committed an error in fastening the liability on the owner. It is the contention that the Tribunal erred in absolving the insurer from its legal liability on the ground that farmers package policy does not cover the risk of the agricultural coolies carried in the tractor and trailer when no additional premium is paid to cover the risk. Though the Tribunal accepted that the appellant was traveling in the tractor and trailer as agricultural coolie and sustained injuries in the accident on account of the negligence on the part of the driver of the tractor trailer, but erroneously comes to the conclusion that the package policy was not in force for the said tractor trailer on the date of the accident. The learned counsel would contend that it is settled law that by default the policy would cover the

¶27

¶28

risk of the coolies being carried in tractor and trailer and there is no need to pay any additional premium and it is a statutory liability. When such being the case, the Tribunal ought not to have fastened the liability on the insured. The learned counsel submits that the driver of the tractor and trailer is the son of the insured and relationship between the insured and the driver is mother and son and hence the contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the claimant is not the coolie of the insured cannot be accepted.

¶29

The learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal taking into note of the material available on record, particularly no premium is paid to carry the coolie, rightly fastened the liability on the insured by exonerating the liability of the Insurance Company. The learned counsel made an attempt to convince the Court contending that the driver of the tractor is not the son of the insured Nanjamma, but no material is placed before the Court.

¶30

The learned counsel for the insured brought to the notice of this Court that in the complaint itself it is specifically mentioned that Srikantha is the owner of the tractor and trailer

¶31

¶32

and he was transporting ragi along with the injured claimant in the tractor and the same is used for agricultural purpose and hence ought not to have absolved the liability of the Insurance Company.

¶33

Having heard the respective learned counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, no doubt, the tractor and trailer stands in the name of Nanjamma and in the complaint, which is marked as Ex.P.1, it is specifically mentioned that Srikantha is the driver and owner of the tractor and trailer and carrying ragi bags. It is also the contention that Srikantha is the son of the insured Nanjamma. The tractor and trailer is used for agricultural purpose for transportation of ragi and apart from that Nanjamma is the insured and Srikantha is the son of the said Nanjamma. When such being the material available on record, the Tribunal ought not to have fastened the liability on the insured when the statutory liability is against the Insurance Company to pay the compensation with regard to the coolies, who are employed by the insured. Hence, I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the claimant as well as the learned counsel for the insured.

¶34

¶35

8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶36

following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶39

(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 13.09.2013, passed in M.V.C.No.29/2012, is modified setting aside the liability fastened on the insured and the liability is fastened on the Insurance Company.

¶40

(iii) The Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation amount with interest at 6% per annum within six weeks from today.

¶41

(iv) The Registry is directed to transmit the records to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

Smt Sunandamma v. Smt Nanjamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sunandamma v. Smt Nanjamma

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. Radhamani K a Vs the National Insurance Company Limited

Sri Mariyanna @ Mariyappa Vs M/S Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Sri Bevina Guddaiah Vs the Divisional Manager

Manjunath Vs Mahadevappa

Sri Srinath U S Vs M/S the United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

The Divisional Manager Vs Smt Ganga