Allowed

The Divisional Manager, v. Shri. Sanjeev @ Sanju S/O Bhima Girinaik

Karnataka HC21 Aug 2023MFA/101478/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that a claimant travelling as an inmate is not a 'third party' under an Act policy. Consequently, the insurance company is not liable, and the liability was modified to be with the vehicle owner, allowing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed; the insurance company's liability was absolved and the liability modified to the vehicle owner; the deposit amount refunded to the appellant.

The Divisional Manager, Vs Shri. Sanjeev @ Sanju S/O Bhima… — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:9230 MFA No. 101478 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101478/2017(MV-D)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., HAVING ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT 1^ST FLOOR, PRABHU BUILDING, 1732, RAMDEV GALLI, BELAGAVI-20, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, II FLOOR, ARIHANT PLAZA, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI-29.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI RAJESH B. RAJANAL, ADVOCATE.)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SUJATA SUBHASH PAMMAR

¶14

SHRI SANJEEV @ SANJU S/O. BHIMA GIRINAIK, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: MASON (NOW NIL), R/O: BHIRADI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶15

MR.MAHAMMAD S/O. CHANDSAB NADAF, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: A/P CHINCHALI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI SANTOSH S. HATTIKATAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI SRINIVAS NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R2.)

¶18

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL THE RECORDS, HEAR THE PARTIES, AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AS

¶19

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:9230 MFA No. 101478 of 2017

¶20

PRAYED FOR BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.11.2016 PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, RAIBAG, IN MVC NO.2202/2015, WITH COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶21

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

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

This appeal is filed by the insurance company challenging the judgment and award passed by the tribunal in MVC No.2202/2015, questioning the liability fastened on it to pay compensation.

¶24

Heard the arguments and perused the records.

¶25

The factum of accident and suffering injuries by

¶26

the claimant in the accident are not disputed.

¶27

In the present case admittedly the insurance

¶28

policy is Act policy/Liability only policy. Admittedly the claimant has traveled in the Bajaj Tempo Trax as inmate and met with accident and suffered the injuries. The tribunal is not correct in fastening liability on the appellant insurance company to pay compensation for the reason

¶29

NC: 2023:KHC-D:9230 MFA No. 101478 of 2017

¶30

¶31

that under the Act policy the risk of only third party is covered. But the claimant cannot be considered as a third party since he was inmate of the tempo trax. Therefore, when the claimant is not a third party, under the Act policy, insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner and pay compensation. The said issue is squarely covered by the order of this Court (Kalaburagi Bench) in the case of Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited and others vs. Shamaraya and others in MFA No.31781/2010 and connected matters disposed of on 22.12.2020 .

¶32

Therefore, liability to pay compensation is modified directing respondent No.2 owner of the vehicle to pay compensation to the claimant as determined by the tribunal. Thus, the liability of the appellant/insurance company is hereby absolved.

¶33