Partly allowed

The Branch Manager v. Shankar T

Karnataka HC11 Oct 2022MFA/5711/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This third party appeal challenges the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarding compensation. The appellant argued the insured violated the policy due to lack of route permits. Applying Supreme Court and High Court precedents, the court held the insurer must pay first and recover from the owner.

What did the court decide?

The insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount of Rs. 12,50,280 with interest at 6% p.a., to be realized within six weeks from the judgment date, with liberty to recover from the

The Branch Manager Vs Shankar T — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

MFA No.5711 OF 2011(MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

The Branch Manager, M/s. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., S-5, 2^nd Floor, Monarch Chambers, Infantry Road, Bangalore-1. … Appellant

¶9

(By Sri.H.N.Keshava Prashanth, Advocate) AND:

¶10

Shankar T., S/o Late. Thimmaiah, Aged about 50 years, R/at No.35/1, 3^rd Cross, Sanjeevininagar, Hegganahalli, Viswaneedam Post, Bangalore-91.

¶11

Mr. Dinesh M.G., Since dead Rep. by his LRs.

¶12

2(a). Smt. Indiramma, W/o Gangadraiah, No/36/2, “Krishna Nilaya”

¶13

¶14

I Cross, I Main, Vishwanna Layout, Shanthinagar, Tumkur. ... Respondents

¶15

(By Smt.G.K. Sreevidya, Advocate for Sri. T.N. Vishwanath, Advocate for R1: Notice to R2 is H/S v/o dated: 20.08.2015)

¶16

This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act, against the Judgment and Award dated: 06.01.2011 passed in MVC No.3209/2009 on the file of the VII Additional Judge, Member, MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, awarding a compensation of Rs. 12,50,280/with interest @ 6% p.a. on Rs.12,30,280/- (excluding future medical expenses) from the date of petition till deposit.

¶17

This MFA, coming on for hearing, this day, this Court, delivered the following:

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor

¶20

Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been filed by the Insurance Company being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 06.01.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-3) in MVC No.3209/2009.

¶21

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

¶22

briefly stated are that on 13.03.2009 at about 9.30

¶23

¶24

a.m., the claimant was proceeding as a passenger in

¶25

BMTC bus bearing registration No.KA-01/F-1541 near Summanahalli Bridge, Kamakshipalya Main road. At that time, bus bearing registration No.KA-16/D-9797 being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the BMTC bus in which claimant was traveling. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.

¶26

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, 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.

¶27

¶28

On service of notice, the respondent No.1

¶29

appeared through counsel and filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. The age, avocation and income of the claimant and the medical expenses are denied. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. It was further pleaded that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the BMTC bus in which the claimant was traveling. It was further pleaded that since the offending vehicle was not having valid permit to ply the bus in the said route, the insured of the offending vehicle has violated the policy condition. It was further pleaded that the liability is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. It was further pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimant is exorbitant. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶30

¶31

The respondent No.2 did not appear before the

¶32

Tribunal inspite of service of notice and was placed ex-parte.

¶33

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 Dr.Bharath K.Kadadi M.S. was examined as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P33. On behalf of the respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 and got exhibited document 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.12,50,280/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the

¶34

¶35

Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

¶36

Sri H.N.Keshava Prashanth, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised the following contentions:

¶37

Firstly, as on the date of the accident the offending vehicle was not having route permit to ply the vehicle in Bangalore. Hence, the insured has violated the policy condition, Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal instead of giving a finding that the offending vehicle was not having valid route permit has erred in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company.

¶38

Secondly, in the connected matter arising out of the same accident, this Court, in MFA No.212/2012 and connected matters disposed of on 31.07.2021 has exonerated the Insurance Company from payment of

¶39

¶40

compensation. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶41

The owner of the offending vehicle is served and unrepresented.

¶42

The learned counsel appearing for the

¶43

claimant has contended that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of RANI

¶44

vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. reported in (2018) 8 SCC 492 and a Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of NEW INDIA

¶45

ASSURANCE CO. LTD. BIJAPUR vs. YALLAVVA

¶46

AND ANOTHER reported in ILR 2020 Kar.2239, in respect of claimant is concerned, the Insurance Company has to pay the compensation amount with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶47

¶48

9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶49

and perused the judgment and award and the original records.

¶50

It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶51

The Tribunal has given a clear finding that the offending vehicle was having a stage carriage permit but there is no permit to ply the vehicle at Bangalore. The accident occurred near Summanahalli Bridge, Kamakshipalya main road, Bangalore. Since the insured has violated the route permit, this Court in MFA No.212/2012 and connected matters has exonerated the Insurance Company from payment of compensation. But, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of RANI (supra) and YALLAVVA (supra) , directed the Insurance

¶52

¶53

Company to pay the compensation amount at the first instance with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.

¶54

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶55

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.

¶56

The amount in deposit is ordered to be

¶57

transferred to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶58

Sd/-

¶59

JUDGE

¶60

Cm/-

The Branch Manager v. Shankar T

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Branch Manager v. Shankar T

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

L.Basavaraj Vs Mohammed Rafeeq

Sri Puttaraju Vs Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd.

Mohammed Ali Afthab Vs Abdul Azeem

Vasanth Kumar Vs the Manager

The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs N Kadirappa

Manjunath Vs the Branch Manager