Partly allowed

Nalinakshi v. Chetan

Karnataka HC2 Dec 2022MFA/3905/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Motor First Appeal, the High Court modified the Tribunal's finding regarding insurer liability. Though the driver lacked a valid license, the Court held the insurance company liable to pay compensation due to third party risk, allowing subsequent recovery from the owner.

What did the court decide?

The judgment of the Tribunal modified; the Insurance Company directed to deposit the awarded compensation amount with interest.

Nalinakshi Vs Chetan — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

1 - MFA No. 3905 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3905 OF 2020(MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

NALINAKSHI W/O PANDURANGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT SIDDALINGAIAHANPALYA TUMKUR AT PRESENT RESIDENT OF HIRIYUR TOWN

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. RANGEGOWDA N R., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

CHETAN

¶13

S/O ERANNA Digitally signed by AGED MAJOR DHANALAKSHMI R/O PITLALI VILLAGE MURTHY HIRIYUR TALUK Location: High CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., E-8, EPIP RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA

¶15

¶16

MFA No. 3905 of 2020

¶17

SITAPUR, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN - 302 022.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI.B.PRADEEP., ADVOCATE FOR R2: NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 09.09.2022)

¶20

THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 13.08.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.1137/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ADDITIONAL MACT, HIRIYUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶21

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

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been filed by the claimants being aggrieved by

¶24

the judgment and award dated 13.8.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hiriyur in MVC 1137/2015.

¶25

¶26

MFA No. 3905 of 2020

¶27

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 20.2.2014 when the claimant was proceeding in autorickshaw bearing registration No.KA-06-C-0381 from Arankatte Village near Pitlali village, at that time, the driver of the autorickshaw drove the same at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and due to which the vehicle toppled down. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.

¶28

The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation. It was pleaded that he spent huge amount towards medical expenses, conveyance charges, etc. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred purely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶29

On service of notice, the respondent No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied.

¶30

¶31

MFA No. 3905 of 2020

¶32

The respondent No.1 did not appear before the Tribunal inspite of service of notice and was placed ex-

¶33

parte.

¶34

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant himself was examined as PW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P17. On behalf of the respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.64,176/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the owner of the offending vehicle to deposit the compensation amount along with

¶35

¶36

MFA No. 3905 of 2020

¶37

interest. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.

¶38

The learned counsel for the claimant has

¶39

contended that the Tribunal has exonerated the Insurance Company from liability and fastened the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid licence as on the date of accident and the insured has violated the policy conditions. Since the offending vehicle was covered with valid insurance policy and since third party risk is involved, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation and later recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. In support of his contention, he has relied upon decision of the Apex Court in the case of PAPPU AND ORS. V. VINOD KUMAR LAMBA AND ANR. [AIR 2018 SC 592] and in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. SWARAN SINGH (2004) 3 SCC 297. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal.

¶40

¶41

MFA No. 3905 of 2020

¶42

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the

¶43

Insurance Company has contended that it is not in dispute that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving licence as on the date of accident. Since the insured has violated the terms and conditions of the policy, the Tribunal has rightly fastened liability on the owner of the offending vehicle and exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶44

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and

¶45

perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

¶46

It is not in dispute that the claimant sustained

¶47

injuries in the road traffic accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶48

The Tribunal after considering the materials available on record has rightly given a finding that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving licence as on the date of the accident. Since the insured has violated the

¶49

¶50

MFA No. 3905 of 2020

¶51

policy conditions, the Tribunal has fastened the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle and exonerated the Insurance Company from liability. Since the offending vehicle is covered with valid insurance policy and since third party risk is involved, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pappu (supra) and in the case of Swaran Singh (supra), the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimant and thereafter, the Insurance Company is at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. Hence, the finding of the Tribunal in so far as liability is concerned, the same is modified.

¶52

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part .

¶53

The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified to the extent stated herein above.

¶54

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount as awarded by the Tribunal along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim

¶55

¶56

MFA No. 3905 of 2020

¶57

petition till the date of realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶58

Thereafter, the Insurance Company is at liberty to recover the compensation amount from the owner of the offending vehicle.

¶59

Sd/JUDGE

¶60

¶61

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 25

Nalinakshi v. Chetan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nalinakshi v. Chetan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Siddharatha Vs Sri. Narayanappa

Anwar Pasha Vs the Manager

Smt Tanuja Vs Sri Nandeesh C G

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Govindaraju H C

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Meenakshi

Sri Mahadeva N Vs Kailash Chand Jat