Dismissed

The Branch Manager v. Laxmi W/O Late Kumarswamy

Karnataka HC17 Aug 2022MFA/20445/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed an insurance company's appeal against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award. The Court held the insurer liable to pay compensation to legal heirs of the deceased victim despite a policy transfer defect and the rider's invalid driving licence.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the Tribunal's award of compensation was upheld, and the amount was ordered to be transmitted to the tribunal.

The Branch Manager Vs Laxmi W/O Late Kumarswamy — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 20445 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 20445 OF 2013 (MV-D)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE BRANCH MANAGER M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., RADHIKA TALKIES BELLARY, REP. BY THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD., BELLARY

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. A G JADHAV, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SMT. N. LAXMI W/O LATE KUMARSWAMY AGE 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O: DOOR NO.33, WARD NO.7, KURIKAMELA, BELLARY.

¶12

N.PAVANKUMAR S/O LATE KUMARSWAMY AGE 21YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: DOOR NO.33, WARD NO.7, KURIKAMELA, BELLARY.

¶13

KUMARI N.LATHA D/O LATE KUMARSWAMY AGE 19 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: DOOR NO.33, WARD NO.7 KURIKAMELA ROAD, BELLARY

¶14

K. KUBERA S/O K. BASAPPA AGE 28 YEARS, KAMMAR CASTE, OWNER CUM RIDER OF HERO HOND,

¶15

¶16

MFA No. 20445 of 2013

¶17

C.D.DOWN, MOTORCYLE BEARING NO. REG.NO.KA-37/L8776, R/O: WARD NO.5, VENKATAMMA COLONY, GUGGARAHATTY, BELLARY

¶18

ALAMATTI UMESH S/O GURUSIDDAPPA AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, BASAVESWARA COMMERCIAL, CBS GUNJ, GAGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. K.L.PATIL, ADFOCTE FOR R5; R4 SERVED)

¶21

THIS MFA FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:03-10-2012 PASSED IN MVC.NO.553/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT-II, BELLARY, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.5,11,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

¶22

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE/DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING.

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Heard the appellant counsel and also the counsel

¶25

appearing for the respondent.

¶26

The Insurance company has filed this appeal against the Judgment and award passed by the tribunal in MVC No.553/2012, questioning the fastening of the liability on the Insurance company contending that, the policy stands in the name of the respondent No.2 and the

¶27

¶28

MFA No. 20445 of 2013

¶29

vehicle was transferred in favour of the respondent No.1 and the RC also stands in the name of respondent No.1 and in view of the non-transfer of the policy, the Insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. The other contention of the learned counsel is that, the rider of the motorcycle was not having valid driving licence and there is a violation of the policy condition and the tribunal would have directed the respondent Nos.4 and 5 to pay the compensation and there is violation of the policy condition and hence, it requires interference of this Court.

¶30

The counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that, in spite of policy was not transferred in the name of the R.C. owner and no driving licence, the tribunal has committed an error in directing the same to pay the compensation, and to recover the same from the respondent No.1 and the counsel also would submits that the order passed by the tribunal to recover the same from respondent No.1 is also requires interference.

¶31

¶32

MFA No. 20445 of 2013

¶33

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submits that, the Apex Court in the case of Balwant Singh and Sons Vs. National Insurance Company Limited, reported in (2020) 11 SCC 745, discussed Sections 147, 157, 146, 149, 2(30) and 50, with regard to the transfer of the ownership of the vehicle and also to the effect of an insurance certificate and operation of Section 157, explained. The Insurance policy issued in the name of original owner therfor, but policy issued to transferee and premium paid by transferee and the said effect is also discussed particularly in respect of third party risks and other risks and now the Insurance company cannot absolve its liability.

¶34

Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, it is not in dispute that, when the policy was issued the vehicle was standing in the name of respondent No.2 and subsequently, the vehicle was transferred in favour of respondent No.1 and also policy was not transferred and

¶35

¶36

MFA No. 20445 of 2013

¶37

the fact that the claimants are also the third parties i.e. wife and children of the deceased Kumaraswamy and the accident was also occurred due to the actionable negligence of the respondent No.1 the owner cum rider of the Hero Honda. When such being the case, the principles laid down in the Judgment referred supra by the counsel appearing for the claimants, as well as the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in the case of Pappu and

¶38

others Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba and another, reported

¶39

in (2018) 3 SCC 208 the contention of the Insurance company cannot be accepted. When the claimants are the legal heirs of third parties, the Insurance Company has to pay and recover the same even in the absence of driving licence and hence the very contention of the Insurance company cannot be accepted.

¶40

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

¶41

ORDER

¶42

The appeal is dismissed.

¶43

¶44

MFA No. 20445 of 2013

¶45

The amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to

¶46

the tribunal forthwith.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

SVH

The Branch Manager v. Laxmi W/O Late Kumarswamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Branch Manager v. Laxmi W/O Late Kumarswamy

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

Mr Jahid @ Sohali Vs the State

P Yeshwanth Vs the State by Kempapura Agrahara Police Station

Netra D/O Nagappa Hakari Vs the Divisional Controller

The Icici Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs K Saiman S/O. Kondayya

Smt Laxmibai W/O Dattatraya Suvarna Vs Sri Allappa

Mahesh Rangappa Galabi Vs Tippanna Laxmappa Badanur