Partly allowed

P.C.Jacob v. the Manager

Karnataka HC8 Jun 2022MFA/1781/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed an appeal filed against an Motor Accident Claim Tribunal award. The court held that the insurer must pay compensation at first instance to the third party victim and subsequently recover the amount from the owner, even though the driver had an expired license at the time of the accident.

What did the court decide?

The insurance company is directed to pay the compensation amount at first instance and subsequently recover the same from the 2nd respondent, the vehicle owner.

P.C.Jacob Vs the Manager — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 08^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶5

M.F.A.NO.1781/2016 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

P.C. JACOB S/O CHACO, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS NO.50, J.C. COTTAGE VIDYARANYAPURA LAKSHMIPURA POST DASANAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU – 23

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. P. MAHADEVA SWAMY, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE MANAGER ICICI LOMBARD GEN. INS. CO. LTD NO.89, SUR COMPLEX HOSUR MAIN ROAD MADIWALA BENGALURU – 68

¶12

THE MANAGING PARTNER M/S A.S. TRANSPORT NO.827/6, RAMAMURTHYNAGAR MAIN ROAD, DOORVANI NAGAR POST BENGALURU – 560016

¶13

…RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI. H.N. KESHAVA PRASHANTH, ADV., FOR R1, R2 NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DT.08.02.2021)

¶15

THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.07.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.5749/2009 ON THE

¶16

¶17

FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXXIII ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶18

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

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

This appeal is filed under Section-173(1), of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘MV Act’ for brevity) by the appellant - petitioner, challenging the judgment and award dated 02.05.2011, passed in MVC No.5749/2009, on the file of MACT, at Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for brevity).

¶21

Brief facts of the case of the appellant is that on 10.07.2009 at about 4.30 p.m., the appellant was riding his motor cycle bearing registration No.K.A.04-ES-2410 from Peenya towards Madanayakanahalli when he came near Padmavathi Kalyana Mantapa, Bangalore, and when he was taking U turn, the lorry bearing No.K.A.21-7340 without following the traffic rules, came from Tumkur side and struck the motor cycle of the appellant. Due to the impact, the

¶22

¶23

appellant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately the appellant was shifted to life line hospital and from there he was shifted to Columbia Asia hospital where he took treatment as inpatient for a period of 6 days in the said hospital and he underwent closed reduction internal fixation and wound debridement. It is stated that, the appellant has spent Rs.3,00,000/towards treatment, medicines, conveyance and nourishment charges. Hence the appellant filed the claim petition before the tribunal for compensation under general and special damages against the respondents.

¶24

The Tribunal has fixed liability on the 2^nd respondent – owner of the vehicle to pay compensation and dismissed the claim petition against respondent – insurance company. Therefore, being aggrieved by fixing the liability on the owner of the vehicle, the claimant had preferred the present appeal.

¶25

The Tribunal had determined compensation and directed the 2^nd respondent to pay the compensation and dismissed the claim petition against

¶26

¶27

respondent No.1 – Insurance company. The Tribunal had given finding and reasons for fastening liability on the respondent No.2 owner that the accident was occurred on 10.07.2009, the driving licence was in force and valid till 10.03.2009. Thereafter the said driving licence was renewed on 24.12.2009. Therefore, after expiry of the validity period, the above said accident has occurred on 10.07.2008 and on this date, there was no valid driving licence and the driving licence was not in force. Therefore, on this ground the Tribunal has directed the 2^nd respondent – owner of the offending vehicle to pay the compensation.

¶28

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that though the driving licence was expired prior to the accident and got renewed after the accident and the driving licence was not in force as on the date of the accident, but order for pay and recovery can be made. In this regard, he has placed reliance of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Singh Ram v.

¶29

Nirmala and Others reported in 2018 (3) SCC 800 and New India Assurance Company Ltd., Vs. Yellavva and another reported in 2020 ACJ 2560 .

¶30

¶31

Therefore, prays for issuing direction to the 1^st respondent – insurance company of the offending vehicle to pay the compensation at first instance, then recover from the 2^nd respondent – owner, as the appellant is the 3^rd party as per Section 147 of the MV Act.

¶32

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 insurance company vehemently submitted that, admittedly as it is proved that there is no valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident. The driving licence was expired much prior to the accident and it is not renewed within the prescribed period. The driver of the aforesaid vehicle was not holding driving licence and it was renewed on 24.12.2009, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. Therefore, submitted that the decision of the Tribunal is correct in observing the insurance company not to pay the compensation.

¶33

In the present case it is not disputed that the accident occurred on 10.07.2009. It is also not disputed that the driver of the offending vehicle was

¶34

¶35

holding driving licence till 10.03.2009. The driving licence has expired on 10.03.2009. It was not renewed thereafter within the prescribed period. Subsequently on 24.12.2009 the driving licence got renewed. But in the mean time, the accident was occurred on 10.07.2009. Therefore, under these circumstances, the insurance company is able to prove the defence that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident. But, there is no evidence that the driver of the offending vehicle was disqualified to drive the vehicle. Mere driving licence was expired and got renewed driving licence after the date of the accident as above stated does not disqualify to drive the vehicle. Therefore, under these circumstances, the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Singh Ram VS. Nirmala And Others , reported in (2018) 3 SCC 800, are applicable in this case.

¶36

I also place reliance on the judgment of the

¶37

Full Bench of this Court in New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Yellavva And Another, reported in 2020 ACJ 2560 , at Paragraph

¶38

¶39

Nos.57, 149, it was held Third Party risk to be satisfied by the Insurance Company. Further, in the case of Singh Ram referred to supra, also the facts are similar as in the present case and the Tribunal has ordered pay and recovery by putting first liability on the insurance company to pay the compensation, then recover from the owner of the offending vehicle, which is confirmed by the High Court and also by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Further, the order of pay and recovery can be made as per the principles of law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Yellavva’s case and in other decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court .

¶40

Even though, respondent No.1-Insurance

¶41

Company is liable to pay the compensation by virtue of Section 149(1) of the Act, the Insurance Company has to satisfy the compensation to the third party and in the present case, the appellant is third party, hence, pay at first instance and recover from the owner of the offending vehicle. Therefore, the order of pay and recovery can be made in the present case also. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶42

¶43

ORDER

¶44

i. The appeal filed in MFA No.1781/2016 is hereby allowed in part.

¶45

ii. The judgment and award 22.07.2015 passed in M.V.C.No.5749/2009 is hereby modified .

¶46

iii. The insurance company is directed to satisfy the compensation amount at first instance and then recover from the 2^nd respondent owner of the lorry bearing No. KA21/7340 as per law, as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the catena of decisions.

¶47

iv. Draw award accordingly.

¶48

It is made clear that the appellant is not entitled to interest for a period of 118 days in filing the appeal.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

P.C.Jacob v. the Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.C.Jacob v. the Manager

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

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Rukmini

National Insurance Com. Ltd., Vs Venkateshappa

The Asst. Executive Engineer Vs Smt. Kempamma

Smt. Gayathramma Vs Chethan H. N. S/O Nagaraja H.S.

K.S. Chandrappa Vs S.H. Durga Ram

Malleshappa G .D Vs S.H. Durgaram