Allowed

The Branch Manager, v. Chandrashekar S/O. Gurunath Revanki

Karnataka HC2 Aug 2022MFA/21587/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The insurer's appeal was allowed. The High Court held that the respondent, being the insured and owner of the vehicle, could not maintain a claim petition against the insurer for injuries. The tribunal's award was set aside as indemnity applies to third parties, not the insured themselves.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment and award directing payment of compensation to the respondent are set aside. The deposited amount is refunded to the appellant.

The Branch Manager, Vs Chandrashekar S/O. Gurunath… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 21587 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 02^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 21587 OF 2012 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH CHIEF, APMC YARD, DHARWAD, R/BY NATIONAL INS. CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE CELL, SUJATA COMPLEX, P.B.ROAD, HUBLI-580029, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. RAVINDRA R. MANE, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

CHANDRASHEKAR S/O. GURUNATH REVANKI AGE ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC: BANK MANAGER, R/O. KALYANA NAGAR, 7TH CROSS, DHARWAD.

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI. PRASAD PEDNEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶14

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 30-11-2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.149/2009 ON THE FILE OF III-ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER MACT, DHARWAD, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.20,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALISATION.

¶15

¶16

MFA No. 21587 of 2012

¶17

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

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

This Court heard the learned counsel for the

¶20

appellant on 26.07.2022 and on the said day, learned counsel for the respondent was absent. However, to give one more opportunity, the matter was listed on 28.07.2022 and further on 28.07.2022. Today also there is no representation from the learned counsel for the respondent. Hence, the matter is taken up for final disposal in the absence of the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶21

The factual matrix of the case of the claimant before the tribunal in MVC No.149/2009 is that, an accident was taken place on 09.12.2008 and the driver of the Car having noticed a Dog coming across the road and in order to avoid the accident, took the vehicle towards the left side of the road, as a result, he went and dashed against a tree. As the result of the accident, the claimant

¶22

¶23

MFA No. 21587 of 2012

¶24

has sustained injuries and hence, he made the claim petition before the tribunal.

¶25

The Insurance Company took the defence in the written statement that, the accident is on account of the own negligence on the part of the claimant. The claimant in order to substantiate his case, he examined himself as P.W.2 and got marked the documents along with P.W.1 i.e. Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15. The tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence, awarded the compensation of Rs.20,000/- with 6% interest. Hence, the present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company contending that the tribunal has committed a grave error in not dismissing the petition and lost sight of the fact that the claimant being the owner of the vehicle, insured with the appellant and he being the holder of the Insurance Policy, he was not entitled to claim any compensation from the appellant and as he could not be considered as a third party in relationship to the contract of the indemnity, the

¶26

¶27

MFA No. 21587 of 2012

¶28

tribunal ought to have appreciated the same and question of indemnifying the owner of the vehicle does not arise.

¶29

Having heard the appellant counsel and perusal

¶30

of the material on record, the point that would arise for consideration of this Court is as under:

¶31

“Whether the claimant can maintain a claim petition against his own Insurer, he being the Insured?”

¶32

Having considered the material on record, it is

¶33

not in dispute that, the claimant is the owner of the vehicle and in a contract of indemnity the Insurer has to indemnify the third party, but here is a case of the claim made by the Insured himself for the injuries sustained by him and question of indemnifying the Insured by the Insurer does not arise and claimant being the Insured cannot maintain any claim petition against the Insurer and the said fact is not considered by the tribunal and hence,

¶34

the very ground urged by the appellant Insurance Company that the tribunal has lost sight of the fact that

¶35

¶36

MFA No. 21587 of 2012

¶37

the respondent, he being the Insured is not entitled to claim any compensation and counsel has rightly contended that he could not be treated as a third party in relation to the contract of indemnity, and the said fact, has not been considered by the tribunal and question of indemnifying the insured does not arise, hence, there is a force in the contention of the appellant counsel and hence, I answer point No.1 as affirmative.

¶38

6. Answer to point No.2 : In view of the

¶39

discussions made above, I pass the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

(i) The appeal is allowed;

¶42

(ii) The impugned Judgment and award directing the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount in favour of the respondent is hereby set aside as the petition filed by the Insured is not maintainable;

¶43

(iii) The amount in deposit is ordered to be refunded in favour of the

¶44

¶45

MFA No. 21587 of 2012

¶46

appellant/Insurance company on proper identification.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

SVH

The Branch Manager, v. Chandrashekar S/O. Gurunath Revanki

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Branch Manager, v. Chandrashekar S/O. Gurunath Revanki

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Sardar Shariff Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Natarajan Vs the State of Karntaka

Chandrashekar @ Ramchandra @ Chandru @ Chandrappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Imran Rice Mill Rep.by Sri.N.Liyakat Ali Khan Vs M/S Sahana Agencies

Sri Mallappa S/O Hanamantappa Gatti Vs Smt Kashavva W/O Mahadevappa Bajeri

Shri.Kareppa S/O Yallappa Butanavar Vs Shri.Raju S/O Ningappap Patil