Partly allowed

United India Insurance Co.Ltd., v. Sri.Sanjay Ramappa Waghamore

Karnataka HC3 Aug 2023MFA/100261/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal filed by an insurance company challenging a compensation award for an occupant injured in a junior covered under an Act policy. The court held that Act policies do not cover occupants unless extra premium is paid, exonerating the insurer and fixing liability on the owner.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part; judgment and award modified to exonerate insurance company from compensation payment and fix liability on owner; deposit refunded to insurance company.

United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs Sri.Sanjay Ramappa Waghamore — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8251 MFA No. 100261 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2023 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100261/2016(MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, MARUTI GALLI, BELAGAVI, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI SANJAY RAMAPPA WAGHAMORE, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC: BARBER AND AGRICULTURIST, R/O: SHIVANUR, TALUK: ATHANI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.

¶13

Digitally signed by SUJATA SUBHASH PAMMAR

¶14

SHRI SACHIN MADHUKAR CHINCHANE, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: VASGADE, TALUK: PALUS, DISTRICT: SANGLI, MAHARASHTRA STATE.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI K.H. BAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶17

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS CONNECTED WITH MVC 1489/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BELAGAVI EXAMINE THE SAME AND AWARD DATED 22.09.2015 IS REQUIRES TO BE SET ASIDE AS AGAINST THE APPELLANT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8251 MFA No. 100261 of 2016

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal is filed by the Insurance company challenging the judgment and award dated 22.09.2015 in MVC No.1489/2012 passed by the II Addl. District Judge, Belagavi questioning the liability fastened on the insurance company.

¶23

The appellant submits that the first respondent suffered the injuries in the accident dated 29.12.2011 while traveling in a jeep bearing No.MH-10/C-6007 belonging to the first respondent and insured with the appellant. The appellant had issued the private car liability only policy in respect of the insured jeep. Neither the policy issued by the appellant nor Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act requires coverage of occupants/passengers in a private car or jeep covered under an Act Policy. The Tribunal, without noticing the legal aspect and contractual terms has made the appellant liable to satisfy the award of which the appellant is aggrieved. The driver of the Jeep had no valid and effective driving license to drive the said

¶24

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8251 MFA No. 100261 of 2016

¶25

vehicle as on the date of accident. The driver was charge sheeted under Section 3 of the MV Act for not having the driving license. The driver had paid the fine for the said offence. Without considering all these aspect the Tribunal wrongly fixed the liability against them. Therefore, the liability fastened against the appellant is illegal. The appellant is aggrieved by the wrongful liability fixed against them. Hence, this appeal.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶27

In the present case, Tribunal while determining and awarding the compensation has fastened the liability on the insurance company to pay compensation. In the present case, the claimant was traveling in Jeep No.MH10-C-6007 and the jeep met with accident and claimant suffered injuries. It is admitted fact that the claimant was traveling in the jeep as occupant. Admittedly, the insurance policy in respect of the Jeep is Act policy/liability only policy. The question is whether the risk of the

¶28

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8251 MFA No. 100261 of 2016

¶29

occupant in the jeep is covered under the Act

¶30

Policy/Statutory Policy is to be considered.

¶31

The controversy involved in the present case is no more res Integra in view of the judgment of this Court in MFA No.31781/2010 and connected matters dated 22.12.2020 between the Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shamaraya and others. Pillion rider of the motorcycle and occupant in the Car/Jeep are third party unless additional/extra premium is paid covering the risk of the pillion rider or occupant in the jeep/car, the Act policy does not cover the risk of the occupant of the jeep/car. Therefore, in the present case, the insurance policy is Act policy/liability only policy and there is no proof that extra/additional premium is paid covering the risk of the occupants in the jeep. Therefore, the Insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the jeep and to pay the compensation. Hence, the appeal filed by the insurance company is required to be allowed in part. Hence, the following:

¶32

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8251 MFA No. 100261 of 2016

¶33

ORDER

¶34

1) Appeal is allowed in part .

¶35

1. Judgment and award dated 22.09.2015 in MVC

¶36

No.1489/2012 passed by the II Addl. District Judge, Belagavi is hereby modified to the extent that the insurance company is exonerated from payment of compensation by fixing liability on the owner of the vehicle.

¶37

1. No order as to costs.

¶38

1. Draw award accordingly.

¶39

1. Amount in deposit shall be refunded to Insurance

¶40

company.

¶41

SD/JUDGE

¶42

HMB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 40 CT-ASC

United India Insurance Co.Ltd., v. Sri.Sanjay Ramappa Waghamore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Co.Ltd., v. Sri.Sanjay Ramappa Waghamore

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

Shri Makaboolsab S/O Imamsab Makandar Vs Hussainbeg Yane Nissar Mahaboob Beg Guddunavar

Reliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. Bellary Vs Umesh S/O. Siddappa Kadamanahalli

The Divisional Manager Vs Smt. Suvarna W/O Mallappa Akki

Smt.Shantawwa Vs Shri.Laxman Y. Kademani

Radha Chandrashekar Madiwal Vs Manjunath Timmappa Gouda

Sri. Timmanna S/O Vs Hanamavva