Allowed

M/S Sri. Suguna Poultry Farm Ltd., v. Mangalore Electrical Supply Co. Ltd.

Karnataka HC10 Jun 2022MFA/6040/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appellant's appeal against the Motor Vehicles Tribunal's award which exonerated the insurer. The Court found merit in the plea of valid insurance coverage and remanded the matter for fresh determination of liability and compensation. Interest for the period of delay was denied.

What did the court decide?

The judgment and award of the Tribunal are set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration on liability and quantum of compensation.

M/S Sri. Suguna Poultry Farm Ltd., Vs Mangalore… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶5

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6040/2016(MV-DM)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M/S. SRI SUGUNA POULTRY FARM LTD REP.BY ITS MANAGER NO.5, SRI GANESH COMPLEX 1ST FLOOR, 80 FEET ROAD INDIRANAGAR BENGALURU-560 038

¶8

...APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI SURESH M., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

MANGALORE ELECTRICAL SUPPLY CO.LTD., REP. BY ITS ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER O. & M.SUB-DIVISION MESCOM BHADRAVATHI-577301

¶12

THE BRANCH MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 5TH FLOOR, CENTURION BUILDING M.G.ROAD BENGALURU-560001

¶13

SRI. DINESH M S/O MONAPPA POOJARI M AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/O NO.397, CHIKKABIDARAKALLU NAGASANDRA POST BENGALURU NORTH-560073

¶14

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI PRASHANTH T. PANDIT, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. D.VIJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 THROUGH VC R3- NOTICE DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED;03.11.2017)

¶17

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.03.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.625/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE FAST TRACK AND ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T(V) BHADRAVATHI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1,09,870/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶18

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

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

This appeal is filed under Section-173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, by the appellant-owner of the vehicle challenging the judgment and award dated 31.03.2015, passed In MVC No.625/2012, on the file of learned Fast Track and Additional MACT at Bhadravathi.

¶21

Brief facts:

¶22

It is stated that on 01.05.2012 at about 12.00 p.m., respondent No.3 being the driver of the Eicher Cantor Lorry bearing No.KA-03-C-9599 drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the electrical pole and transformer of respondent No.1 near Visveswarayya Nagara

¶23

¶24

bypass road, Bhadravathi and on account of the said accident there was damage to the RCC pole and transformer causing loss to respondent No.1 and that the appellant herein is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the said vehicle.

¶25

The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.1,09,870/- and fixed compensation liable to pay on driver and owner of the Cantor Lorry, on the ground that by observing there is no insurance policy coverage between the appellant and respondent No.2. On these grounds that Tribunal has exonerated the insurance company and fixed liability on the driver and owner of Cantor Lorry.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there is a valid insurance coverage in respect of the vehicle between the appellant and respondent No.2Insurance Company and also driver of the Lorry was holding valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident, but have not produced it before the Tribunal. Therefore, prays for

¶27

¶28

production of the same before this Court or remand to the Tribunal to produce before the Tribunal.

¶29

He further submitted that the appellant has made correspondence with respondent No.2-Insurance Company and admitted their liability by virtue of contract between the respondent and in case if there was a valid and effective driving license then respondent No.2 assured that they would satisfy the liability. Therefore, prayed for remanding the case for reconsideration.

¶30

Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the materials on record.

¶31

The Tribunal, while answering issues and fixing liability, placed respondent Nos.1 and 2 exparte, who are driver and owner of the Cantor Lorry and herein they are appellant and respondent No.3, respectively. The appellant being the owner of the vehicle have not contested the case before the Tribunal and the Tribunal observed that there is no proof regarding insurance coverage. Hence, exonerated respondent No.2 -Insurance Policy

¶32

¶33

and thus fixed liability on respondent Nos.1 and 2. Now the learned counsel submitted that there was a valid insurance policy and also the driver was holding valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident and they would produce the same before the Tribunal. Therefore, requested to remand the matter to the Tribunal. Considering their submissions in the case if there is a valid Insurance policy between the owner and insurer and also driver was holding a valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident while driving the offending Lorry, it is just and proper to remand the case giving an opportunity to the appellant to produce the said documents before the Tribunal for proper assessment and determination. Considering the contentions taken by all the parties the matter is required to be remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration on all aspects regarding liability as well as quantum of compensation. Therefore, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is hereby set aside by allowing the appeal. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶34

¶35

ORDER

¶36

i. The appeal is allowed .

¶37

ii. The judgment and award dated 31.03.2015, passed In MVC No.625/2012, on the file of learned Fast Track and Additional MACT at Bhadravathi, is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration on liability as well as quantum of compensation.

¶38

iii. All the contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶39

iv. The amount deposited shall be sent to the Tribunal along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith.

¶40

v. There was delay of 427 days in filing the appeal and delay is condoned by the order dated 26.08.2021. Therefore, respondent No.2- Insurance company is not liable to pay interest for this delayed period.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

SKS

M/S Sri. Suguna Poultry Farm Ltd., v. Mangalore Electrical Supply Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Sri. Suguna Poultry Farm Ltd., v. Mangalore Electrical Supply Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N Radhakrishna Kamath Vs P Rajendran

P.C.Jacob Vs the Manager

Smt. Gayathramma Vs Chethan H. N. S/O Nagaraja H.S.

Eregowda Vs Amid Pasha

Mr Ismail Vs Mr Armugam

Smt. Soudamani Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.