Allowed

New India Assurance Co., Ltd., v. Sri. Ravindra S/O Panduranga Ankolekar

Karnataka HC21 Jul 2022MFA/22697/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the appeal against an award by MACT. Holding that a private car policy is an Act policy and does not cover injuries to an inmate of the vehicle, the court exonerated the insurance company from liability.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award directed to be modified to exonerate appellant Insurance Company from liability; amount to be refunded; records transmitted to MACT.

New India Assurance Co., Ltd., Vs Sri. Ravindra S/O Panduranga… — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 22697 of 2010

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.KRISHNA BHAT MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 22697 OF 2010 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO., LTD., THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, CLUB ROAD, BELGAUM, REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE, MISSION ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 027, REP. BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. NAGANGOUDA R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SRI. RAVINDRA S/O PANDURANGA ANKOLEKAR AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: B.K.KANGRALI, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶12

Digitally signed by JAGADISH T R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD

¶13

SRI. CHANDRAKANT S/O PARAPP GANDROLLI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: AT POST: BADAKUNDRI, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. K. B. NAIK AND V. K. NAIK, ADVOCATES FOR R1, SRI KAPEEL S. MALAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶16

THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING THIS COURT TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS CONNECTED WITH IN MVC.NO.1771/2008 BY II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI EXAMINE THE SAME AND SET ASIDE AWARD DATED 29.01.2010 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶17

¶18

MFA No. 22697 of 2010

¶19

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

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

In this appeal, at the instance of the Insurance Company, the legality of the directions in the award dated 29.01.2010 in MVC NO.1771/2008 by the II-Additional District Judge & Additional MACT, Belagavi (for short ‘MACT’) pertaining to the correctness of liability fastened by the learned MACT on the appellant- Insurance Company to pay the compensation in respect of the injury suffered in a Motor Vehicle accident involving in the offending vehicle is called in question.

¶22

The brief facts are that the claimant-respondent No.1 on 13.06.2008 was proceeding towards Narasingpur in a Tempo Trax bearing registration No.KA-23/M-3716, and on account of rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle, it dashed against a tractor-trailer bearing Registration No.CNL-4283/4284 near Varimasti Holi cross resulting in grievous injuries to the claimant.

¶23

¶24

MFA No. 22697 of 2010

¶25

The Insurance Company contested the

¶26

proceeding by filing written statement.

¶27

During trial, claimant examined himself as PW1 and he examined one Dr. Siddappa Rachappa Angadi, as PW1. Ex.P.1 to P14 were marked. Insurance Company examined one of its officials as RW.3. Ex.R.1 and R2 were marked for the respondent.

¶28

After hearing the learned counsel on both sides and perusing the records, the learned MACT allowed the claim petition in part awarding compensation of Rs.2,10,500/- with the interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment and the liability to pay compensation was fastened on appellant-Insurance Company.

¶29

Learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company strenuously contended that the offending vehicle having been covered with an ‘Act Policy’ and the claimant

¶30

¶31

MFA No. 22697 of 2010

¶32

being an inmate of such a vehicle, the liability to pay compensation for the injuries suffered by such an inmate cannot be fastened on the Insurance Company and therefore, the direction fastening the liability on the Insurance Company is illegal and appeal, therefore, is liable to be allowed.

¶33

Learned counsel for the respondent is not

¶34

present.

¶35

Ex.R1 is the Policy of Insurance issued by the appellant-Insurance Company in respect of the offending Tempo-Trax bearing registration No.KA-23/M-3716. I have perused Ex.R.1. It is a ‘private car policy “A” liability’ only meaning thereby, it is an “Act Policy”. Law is well settled by the decision of this Court in The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Magadev Pandurang Patil and Another¹ and further by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagtar Singh

¶36

1 ILR 2011 KAR 850 at paragraph 17

¶37

¶38

MFA No. 22697 of 2010

¶39

Alias Jagdev Singh Vs. Sanjeev Kumar and others² , to the effect that when the vehicle is covered by “Act Policy”, the liability to pay compensation for the injuries suffered or the death of inmate of such vehicle cannot be fastened on the Insurance Company. In that view of the matter, the directions in the impugned award to the extent the liability is fastened on the appellant-Insurance Company to pay the compensation awarded to the claimant, who is an inmate of the offending vehicle covered with Ex.R.1-Policy is illegal and accordingly it is set-aside.

¶40

This appeal is allowed and the direction in the impugned judgment and award dated 29.01.2010 in MVC NO.1771/2008 by the II Additional District Judge & Additional MACT, Belagavi is modified to the extent that the appellant Insurance Company is exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation directed thereon.

¶41

2 (2018) 15 SCC 189

¶42

¶43

MFA No. 22697 of 2010

¶44

Amount in deposit shall be refunded to the appellant-

¶45

Insurance Company.

¶46

Records shall be transmitted to the leaned MACT

¶47