Allowed

H.Srinivas S/O.H.Nagappa v. Smt.Sharada Vali W/O. Late Vidyadhar Vali

Karnataka HC3 Oct 2023MFA/100849/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the miscellaneous first appeal and modified the Tribunal's award. It held that under a comprehensive insurance policy covering all inmates, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation. Consequently, the vehicle owner was absolved of liability and the payer was directed to deposit the award before the Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Appellant owner absolved of liability; Respondent No.4 Insurance Company held liable to deposit compensation awarded to claimants within eight weeks; deposit made by appellant to be refunded.

H.Srinivas S/O.H.Nagappa Vs Smt.Sharada Vali W/O. Late Vidyadhar… — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11591-DB MFA No. 100849 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100849 OF 2020

¶8

(MV-D)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

H.SRINIVAS S/O. H.NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT : 58 YEARS, OCC : DRIVER-CUM-OWNER OF SWIFT CAR BEARING NO.KA-35/M-7211, R/O : KOGANTI COMPLEX, KOTTUR ROAD, KAMPLI, HOSAPETE TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-58310.

¶11

….APPELLANT (BY SRI Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

ROHAN HADIMANI T

¶14

Digitally signed by ROHAN HADIMANI T Date: 2023.10.07 12:23:34 +0530

¶15

SMT.SHARADA VALI W/O. LATE VIDYADHAR VALI, AGE : 47 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD, R/O : H.NO.104, WARD NO.15, JALAGAR ONI, KAMPLI, TQ : HOSAPETE, BALLARI DISTRICT-583101.

¶16

KARTHIK VALI S/O.LATE VIDYADHAR VALI AGE : 27 YEARS, OCC : STUDENT, R/O : H.NO.104, WARD NO.15, JALAGAR ONI, KAMPLI, TQ. : HOSAPETE BALLARI DISTRICT-583101.

¶17

SHRIKANTH VALI S/O.LATE VIDYADHAR VALI, AGE : 23 YEARS, OCC : STUDENT, R/O : H.NO.104, WARD NO.15,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11591-DB MFA No. 100849 of 2020

¶20

JALAGAR ONI, KAMPLI, TQ. : HOSAPETE, BALLARI DISTRICT-583101.

¶21

REGIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., KUSGAL ROAD, HUBBALLI, DHARWAD DISTRICT-580008 (POLICY NO.35101031146134882451 W.E.F.28.04.2014 TO 27.04.2015)

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI LINGRAJ MARADI, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR/RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3) (BY SRI S.V.YAJI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4)

¶24

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.11.2019 PASSED IN M.V.C.NO.1027/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-CUM-MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-IV, HOSAPETE, BY HOLDING THAT THE 4^TH RESPONDENT INSURER IS LIABLE TO BE INDEMNIFY THE APPELLANT HEREIN AND FURTHER FASTENING THE LIABILITY ON 4^TH RESPONDENT NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY.

¶25

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

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 02.12.2019 passed in MVC.No.1027/2015 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge

¶28

- 3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11591-DB MFA No. 100849 of 2020

¶29

and JMFC-Cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IV, Hosapete (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereby the said claim petition filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 seeking compensation towards demise of Late Vidyadhar Vali in fatal road traffic accident that occurred on 13.03.2015 was partly allowed by the Tribunal. By the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased was a passenger in a private car and consequently exonerated/absolved the respondent No.4/Insurance Company of its liability to pay the compensation and fastened the liability to pay compensation upon the appellant, owner of the offending vehicle.

¶30

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants are wife and children of late Vidyadhar, who expired in a fatal road traffic accident that occurred on 13.03.2015 when he was traveling as an inmate/passenger in offending vehicle, which was a Maruti Swift car bearing registration No.KA-35/M-7211 owned by appellant and

¶31

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11591-DB MFA No. 100849 of 2020

¶32

insured by respondent No.4/Insurance Company. Pursuant to the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues :

¶33

“1. Whether petitioners prove that on 13.03.2015 at about 3.45 p.m., near Mulla Daba Hotel of Hosategur village on N.H.-04, belgaumDharwad road, while Vidhyadhar Vali was proceeding in Car bearing registration No.KA35/M-7211 at that time, the respondent No.1 being the driver of above said car and drove in a high speed, rash and negligent manner and dashed to a lorry which was going in front of car, as a result of which, he succumbed to the injuries on 23.03.2015 in road traffic accident?

¶34

Whether the respondent No.2 proves that on the date of accident, the respondent No.1 was not holding valid driving licence, hence, there were violation of terms and conditions of the Policy, and it is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners?

¶35

Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what amount? From whom?

¶36

What order of award?”

¶37

The Tribunal answered the issue No.1 in favour of claimants and thereby came to the conclusion that the accident in question was on account of rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid offending vehicle. So also issue No.2 was answered against the Insurance

¶38

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11591-DB MFA No. 100849 of 2020

¶39

Company by the Tribunal, which came to the conclusion that the driver had valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident. However, while fastening the liability, the Tribunal placed reliance upon the Judgment of this Court in the case of the General Manager, oriental Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Smt Varsha W/o.Late Tararam and Others, MFA.No.10388/ 2007(MV) in order to come to the conclusion that the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation. In this context, it is relevant to state that the Tribunal has failed to consider and appreciate the contents of undisputed insurance policy at Ex.R.2, which clearly indicate that same was a package policy/ comprehensive policy under which all inmates of the private car were covered and necessary premium including added compulsory P.A. cover premium of Rs.100/- had been paid by the owner of the offending vehicle.

¶40

Under these circumstances and in the light of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

¶41

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11591-DB MFA No. 100849 of 2020

¶42

National Insurance Company Ltd., v/s. Balakrishnan

¶43

and Another , reported in 2013 ACJ 199 , we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has committed an error in exonerating/absolving the Insurance Company of its liability to pay compensation and fastening the liability to pay compensation upon the appellant-owner of the offending vehicle and as such, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal deserves to be modified to the said extent.

¶44

In the result, we pass the following :

¶45

O R D E R

¶46

(i) The appeal is hereby allowed.

¶47

(ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 02.12.2019 passed in MVC.No. 1027/2015 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC-Cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IV, Hosapete is hereby modified as under :

¶48

(a) The appellant-owner of the offending vehicle Swift Car bearing No.KA-35/M-

¶49

7 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11591-DB MFA No. 100849 of 2020

¶50

7211 is absolved/exonerated of any liability to pay compensation in this case.

¶51

(b) Respondent No.4/Insurance Company is held to be liable to pay compensation awarded by the Tribunal in favour of claimants and is directed to deposit the same before the Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶52

(iii) The entire amount deposited by the appellant-owner is directed to be refunded back to him forthwith.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

Sd/JUDGE

¶55

CKK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

H.Srinivas S/O.H.Nagappa v. Smt.Sharada Vali W/O. Late Vidyadhar Vali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H.Srinivas S/O.H.Nagappa v. Smt.Sharada Vali W/O. Late Vidyadhar Vali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India Vs Shri Durgappa S/O Mariyappa Kattimani

Durgappa S/O Mariyappa Kattimani Vs Purandar Naik

Sri Seetharamappa Vs Union of India

Smt. Rathna Alias Sunanda W/O Yankanagouda Hosali Vs Sri Yankanagouda S/O Pompanagouda Hosalli

Mr. I K Manik S/O Khasimsaheb Vs the Principal Secretary

Shri Ashok S/O Ishwarappa Niralkatti Vs the Commissioner