This appeal sought enhancement of compensation in a motor vehicle accident claim. The court held that the insurer must pay despite the vehicle lacking a permit, citing Tension and enhanced an additional sum.
Additional compensation of Rs.80,000 awarded; insurer to pay total Rs.3,50,880 with interest.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
MFA No.1812/2015 (MV/I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. PRADEEP K.N. S/O NAGARAJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 24 YFEARS, RESIDING AT KANCHINAKERE-VILLAGE, K.R. NAGARA TALUK, MYSORE DIST - 570 001.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. H.V. BHANU PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
(DRIVER OF SWARAJ MAZDA VEHICLE BEARING REG.NO.KA-04-C-9300)
2
(OWNER OF SWARAJ MAZDA VEHICLE BEARING REG.NO.KA-04-C-9300)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R3 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD 15.04.2015 NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DTD 07.09.2021)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:25.11.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.1123/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MYSURU, IN CONCURRENT CHARGE OF ADDITIONAL COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MYSURU, AS A PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, P.S. DINESH KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation is filed challenging the judgment and award dated November 25, 2014 in MVC.No.1123/2012 passed by the Principal Judge, Small Causes Court, Mysuru.
3
4
1 2018 (7) SCC 558 Para 23 & 24.
5
the offending vehicle did not had a valid permit. Admittedly, the insurer has insured the vehicle. The only question is whether there was any violation of policy condition. In view of the decision in Amrit paul Singh though the offending vehicle did not have permit, the insurer is liable to satisfy the award with liberty to recover the same from the owner.
12. Hence the following;
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed in part by holding that claimant is entitled for an additional
6
compensation of Rs.80,000/- payable with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of filing claim petition till the date of deposit; and
(ii) Insurer shall pay the entire compensation amount of Rs.3,50,880/(Rs.2,70,880+80,000) with interest at 6% p.a., excluding the amount paid, if any, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Disbursement shall be made as directed by the Tribunal.
No costs.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
DS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the insurer is liable to indemnify the owner of a vehicle without a valid permit.
Whether compensation quantum should be enhanced.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Amrit Paul Singh & Another Vs. TATA AIG General InsuranceApplied¶39
Amrit Paul Singh & Another Vs. TATA AIG General Insurance
SRI. PRADEEP K.N.
SRI. H.K.VIJAYAKUMAR
SRI B. NARAYAN
THE DIVISIONAL MANGER FUTURE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD
P.S. DINESH KUMAR
RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
