Allowed

The National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Smt. Madevi Nagesh Naik

Karnataka HC5 Sept 2022MFA/20084/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an insurance company's appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award of Rs. 3,95,000. The Court held that under a liability-only policy without pillion rider cover, the liability lies with the insured owner, not the insurer.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order directing the Insurance Company to pay compensation is set aside; liability is directed to be paid by the Insured.

The National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt. Madevi Nagesh Naik — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 20084 of 2011

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶7

MFA NO. 20084 OF 2011 (MV-D)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, 1 ST FLOOR, 1628, KAIKINI ROAD, KARWAR. NOW REP. BY ITS, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, MISS. RENUKA Y.RANEBENNUR, REGIONAL OFFICE CELL, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SUJATA COMPLEX, P.B. ROAD, HUBLI.

¶10

… APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. SURESH S.GUNDI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SMT. MADEVI NAGESH NAIK, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLED, R/O KEREHOSALLI, TQ.YELLAPUR, DIST. U.K.

¶14

SMT. LAXMI MASTAPPA NAIK, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. KAREHOSALLI, TQ. YELLAPURM DIST. U.K.

¶15

KUMARI NAYANA NAGESH NAIK, AGE: 16 YEARS, R/O YELLAPUR,

¶16

KUMARI ARCHANA NAGESH NAIK, AGE: 11 YEARS, R/O. YELLAPUR,

¶17

¶18

MFA No. 20084 of 2011

¶19

KUMARI. VIJAYA NAGESH NAIK, AGE: 9 YEARS, R/O YELLAPUR,

¶20

APPELLANT Nos.3 TO 5 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY NATURAL MOTHER SMT. MADEVI NAGESH NAIK, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WORK, R/O. KEREHOSALLI, TQ. YELLAPUR, DIST. U.K.

¶21

SRI. SHANKAR BEERAPPA PATGAR, AGE: MAJOR, OWNER KURIKOPPA TOLGOD HITTALALLI, TQ. YELLAPUR, DISTRICT: U.K.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. SURESH S.GUNDI, ADVOCATE)

¶24

THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:27-08-2010 PASSED IN MVC NO.1/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, YELLAPUR, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.3,95,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL PAYMENT.

¶25

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

¶27

MFA No. 20084 of 2011

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

This appeal is filed challenging the Judgment and Award passed in MVC No.1/2007 dated 27.08.2010 on the file of the Additional MACT, Yellapur questioning the liability passed on the Insurance Company.

¶30

Factual matrix of the case of the claimants

¶31

before the Tribunal is that, the deceased was proceeding as a pillion rider on the motorcycle and due to the accident, he has sustained grievous injuries and also succumbed to the injuries when he was shifted to the hospital. Hence, claim was made by the widow, children and also the mother of the deceased. The Tribunal after considering the materials available on record granted compensation of Rs.3,95,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

¶32

Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Award, the present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company mainly contending that the policy issued is

¶33

¶34

MFA No. 20084 of 2011

¶35

only a liability policy and Tribunal ignoring the principles laid down in the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed an order passing the liability on the Insurance Company on the basis of additional premium paid under loading of third party premium which is collected to meet out claim ratio and not collected to cover the risk of pillion rider. As such, the same is to be modified by this Court.

¶36

Per contra the learned counsel appearing for the respondents also submits that, premium of Rs.26/- is collected by the Insurance Company in respect of third party and hence, the Tribunal has rightly passed the liability on the Insurance Company which does not requires any interference of this Court.

¶37

Having heard the learned counsel for the

¶38

parties and on perusal of the material on record, it is not in dispute that the deceased was proceeding as pillion rider on the motorcycle which was involved in

¶39

¶40

MFA No. 20084 of 2011

¶41

the accident and it is also not in dispute in terms of Ex.R1 that the policy is only liability only policy and the same is marked as Ex.R2. No doubt a premium of Rs.26/- is collected i.e., in respect of loading on third party premium and policy is not a comprehensive policy and when such being the case, the Tribunal ought not to have passed the liability on the Insurance Company. The Hon’ble Apex Court’s judgment quoted

¶42

in CDJ 2012 SC 774 between National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Balakrishnan & Another has held that if it is a comprehensive policy, the insurer is liable to compensate the claimants. Similar question was raised and the Hon’ble Apex Court comes to the conclusion that policy did not cover the occupant of the car and when the policy is an act policy, the question of liability does not arise and an act policy stands on a different footing from a comprehensive policy. Hence, in view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court and when the act policy is issued in terms

¶43

¶44

MFA No. 20084 of 2011

¶45

of Ex.R2 and the very conclusion of the Tribunal that Rs.26/- premium is collected and the same is not in respect of pillion rider and the same is in respect of third party and hence, there is a force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal ought not to have passed the liability on the Insurance Company. And hence, it requires the interference of this Court and the Judgment and Award requires to be modified exhilarating the liability of the Insurance Company and the owner has to be directed to pay the compensation to the claimants.

¶46

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

Appeal is allowed and the impugned order directing the Insurance Company to pay the compensation is hereby set aside and the same is modified directing the Insured to pay the compensation to the claimants.

¶49

¶50

MFA No. 20084 of 2011

¶51

The amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to be

¶52

refunded in favour of the Insurance Company on

¶53

proper identification.

¶54

Sd/JUDGE

¶55

The National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Smt. Madevi Nagesh Naik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Smt. Madevi Nagesh Naik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raziya Begum Vs Arjuna G Ganachari

Ravikumar M @ Ravikumar Nayak Vs State of Karnataka

Rajesh Kumar Rai Vs the State of Karnataka

Namesh S/O Bahubali Sooji Vs Bilal S/O Niyaz Sait

Irappa S/O Basappa Julpi, Vs Ranjeet Vikramsinh Aparadh

Smt. Mallamma W/O Kalakamalleshi Teredal, Vs Vikas Transport