Dismissed

Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., v. Doddappa Torappa Maled

Karnataka HC23 Aug 2022MFA/20935/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka (Dharwad Bench) dismissed an appeal by an insurance company seeking to set aside a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award of Rs. 25,000 in personal accident compensation, noting the payment of premium validated the claim despite lack of specified schedule injuries.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; deposited amount transferred to the Tribunal.

Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs Doddappa Torappa Maled — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 20935 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶4

DHARWAD BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 20935 OF 2013 (MV)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CLUB ROAD, BELGAUM REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, SUMANGALA COMPLEX, II FLOOR LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBLI REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER A.SATYA SHANTI

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by J MAMATHA JMAMATHA Location:DharwadDate: 2022.08.27 10:13:14 +0530

¶14

DODDAPPA TORAPPA MALED AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC: KUTIRANATTI, TAL: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. HANUMANT R LATUR, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:29-12-2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.939/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, BELGAUM, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION

¶18

¶19

MFA No. 20935 of 2013

¶20

OF RS.25,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALISATION.

¶21

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY. THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING.

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶24

The factual matrix of the case of the claimant before the Tribunal is that on 07.11.2009 at about 13 hours, when he was returning from Agasaga towards Belgaum on his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-24/3-6634 and when he reached near Agasaga village, he lost control over his vehicle and as a result, the said motorcycle capsized and he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. It is his further case that the accident in question took place due to the use and involvement

¶25

of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-24/J-6634. Hence, the respondent being the insurer is liable to pay the compensation as it had received the extra premium to cover the risk of the owner/driver of the said vehicle in the event of use and involvement of the said vehicle. Hence, he filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking for compensation.

¶26

¶27

MFA No. 20935 of 2013

¶28

In support of his claim, the claimant got examined himself as PW-1 and got marked documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12. On the other hand, respondents examined one witness as RW-1 and got marked two documents as Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2. The Tribunal after assessing both oral and documentary evidence allowed the claim petition awarding compensation of Rs.25,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeal.

¶29

Learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that the Tribunal ought not to have entertained the claim petition since the policy provided coverage to third parties and the insurer is required to indemnity the insured against third party claims and not for injuries suffered by him in the accident involving the vehicle insured by him. The learned counsel also would submit that personal accident cover (PAC) extended by collecting premium of Rs.50/- for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- cannot be the subject matter of proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The claimant has to approach the insurer for settlement of PAC cover in terms of the policy and that dispute cannot be agitated before the

¶30

¶31

MFA No. 20935 of 2013

¶32

Tribunal. Learned counsel would further submit that the Tribunal failed to consider the requirements of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act and terms of policy to decide about the liability of the insurer. The accident in this case is self accident and the claimant cannot maintain a petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The victim of self-accident is not a third party. In support of his argument, she relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in DHANRAJ VS. NEW

¶33

INDIA ASSURANCE CO., LTD., AND ANOTHER (Civil Appeal No.6270-71/2004 decided on 24.09.2004) and submits that the owner of a vehicle can only claim provided personal accident insurance has been taken out and in this case there is no such insurance. Learned counsel would further contend that as per Motor Tariff GR.36 personal Accident Cover under motor policy, the scope of the cover, with capital sum insured and the annual premium paid, 100% of CSI for death, loss of two limbs or sight of both eyes or one limb and sight of one eye, 50% of CSI for loss of one limb or sight of one eye and 100% for permanent total disablement from injuries other than named above. But, in the case on hand, only he has suffered the laceration and there is no permanent total

¶34

¶35

MFA No. 20935 of 2013

¶36

disablement and not entitled for PA coverage. Hence she submits that the judgment and award of the Tribunal calls for interference of this Court.

¶37

Per contra, learned counsel for the

¶38

respondent/claimant would submit that when the premium is paid for personal accident claim, the Insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. Learned counsel for the respondent/claimant referring to the judgment of this Court dated 23.07.2014 passed in M.F.A.No.3332/2009 c/w M.F.A.Crob.No.88/2010 submits that this Court had granted compensation of Rs.50,000/- considering the nature of the injuries of fracture of both the bones of right leg and he has sustained permanent disability of 20% to the limb and to the extent of 7 to 8% to the whole body. The said injuries were not the schedule injuries. In the case on hand, the claimant has taken treatment as an inpatient for a period of 5 days and he has spent an amount of Rs.12,249/- towards medical expenses which has been considered by the Tribunal. Apart from the medical expenses, considering the nature of the injuries, pain and agony, minimum medical expenses, nursing and attendant charges extra nourishment and conveyance, the

¶39

¶40

MFA No. 20935 of 2013

¶41

Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- as compensation. Hence, he submits that the compensation awarded is not exorbitant as contended by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

¶42

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also on perusal of the material available on record, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that there is PA coverage and collected premium of Rs.50/- from the claimant. No doubt, it is not like indemnifying the third party but in the case on hand when the personal accident premium is collected to the extent of Rs.50/- and also in view of the judgment of this Court passed in M.F.A.No.3332/2009 c/w MFA Crob.88/2010 disposed of on 23.07.2014 wherein in the absence of schedule injury, this Court has granted compensation of Rs.50,000/-, I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company referring to the judgment in DHANRAJ’s case wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that a owner of the vehicle can only claim compensation provided a personal accident coverage has been taken. In the case on hand, the premium of Rs.50/- is paid. When such being the case, judgment in the DHANRAJ’s case will not come to the aid of

¶43

¶44

MFA No. 20935 of 2013

¶45

the appellant and hence no grounds are made out to entertain

¶46

this appeal.

¶47