MFA against MACT judgment where dealer alleged no liability for compensation. High Court held tribunal exceeded jurisdiction regarding dealer liability since vehicle owner was solely at fault due to rash driving.
Appellant not liable; 4th respondent (vehicle owner) alone liable to deposit Rs.7,45,000/- compensation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2023:KHC:46324 MFA No. 10349 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 10349 OF 2018 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
CHANDRASHEKAR,
PROPRIETOR: VICTORY MOTORS (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS VINAY TRACTORS) NO.425/39, 11TH CROSS, WILSON GARDEN, BENGALURU - 560 050.
…APPELLANT
(BY SMT. NALINA K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VENKATA REDDY S.K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by JAI JYOTHI J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 ARE R/AT MARULE BEKUPPE VILLAGE,
UYYAMBALLI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TQ., RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 562 117.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.P. BHUVAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. PRAKASH M.H., ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI. H.C. BETSUR, ADVOCATE FOR R5; VIDE ORDER DATED 13.02.2023, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R6 HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27/10/2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.6342/2010, ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XIX ACMM., MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-23), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.7,45,000/WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DEPOSIT OF THE AMOUNT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the award passed in
M.V.C.No.6342/2010 dated 27.10.2018 on the file of XXI
Additional Small Causes Judge and MACT, Bengaluru, the appellant is before this Court. The claim petition was filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in the accident.
NC: 2023:KHC:46324 MFA No. 10349 of 2018
wheeler of the deceased. As a result, he sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. Both the 1st and 2nd respondents have filed their written statements, stating that the first respondent, being the RC owner of the offending vehicle, disputes his liability by contending that the vehicle was insured with the second respondent. The third respondent, who is the dealer of the tractor trailer, collected the premium amount through his employer that is 4th respondent and issued an insurance policy along with premium payment receipts. Therefore, 2nd and 3rd respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount.
the Court below, permitting the owner of the vehicle to implead the proprietor of Victory Motors which is previously known as Vinay Tractors as a necessary party. Further, this Court has observed that if the Court below comes to the conclusion that the person who is sought to be impleaded in the said proceedings has really played the mischief as contended by the owner of the vehicle, the Court below is at liberty to consider not only the possibility of shifting the liability but also to order for prosecution against him by referring the matter to the jurisdictional police, if necessary, in such observation, the matter was remanded back to the court below.
police station against the appellant and the employee, who is working with the appellant, who has issued the receipt
to the owner of the vehicle. When the complaint was lodged by the owner of the vehicle against the Company and the employee, who had issued a fake receipt, the police, after conducting a full-fledged investigation, filed a charge sheet against the employee. The Court has also considered the extrajudicial confection made by the employee, stating that she has issued such a receipt to the owner of the vehicle, and also the fake policy, as if it is issued on behalf of the appellant herein. The Court below come to the conclusion that fraud is played by the appellant as well as employee, and holds that the owner, the dealer, and the employee who is working with the dealer are all jointly and severally liable for the compensation amount, but holds that the third respondent alone is liable to pay the compensation amount and directed to deposit the compensation amount.
submits that they are the dealers of Mahindra and Mahindra Tractors and at they have not issued the insurance policy. It is further submitted that they have sold the vehicle on 19.02.2007, the accident had taken place on 03.09.2010. According to the owner of the vehicle, the employee of the appellant has issued the policy and the said story put forth by the owner of the vehicle is not at all convincing. It is further submitted that, according to the owner, the policy was issued by the employee of the appellant; the said employee was removed from employment on 03.10.2009 and the receipt pertains to 18.03.2010. It is further submitted that the MACT has gone beyond its jurisdiction and adjudicated the claim. It is further submitted that the MACT ought not to have held the appellant responsible when there is no evidence to come to such a conclusion, particularly the charge sheet is filed only against the employee but not against the appellant.
vehicle submits that he has been deceived by the appellant as well as the employee. He had given a police complaint; the police have conducted a full-fledged investigation and they have also filed a charge sheet. Learned counsel further submits that he purchased the vehicle on 19.02.2007, he was already given two policies for the preceding two years and this is the third policy. It is further submitted that, as per the direction of this Court in the earlier round of litigation, the Tribunal has rightly
held that the appellant is responsible and the Tribunal has rightly granted the compensation.
by the Court below and the compensation that was awarded by the Tribunal is not just and reasonable.
NC: 2023:KHC:46324 MFA No. 10349 of 2018
regard to the fraud or otherwise played by the dealer or any of his employee, has to be handled independently. The Tribunal, by doing all the exercise and by holding that
the appellant herein is responsible and liable to pay the compensation, has gone beyond its jurisdiction and passed
NC: 2023:KHC:46324 MFA No. 10349 of 2018
the order. If at all any fraud is played, it is for the owner of the vehicle to take appropriate steps against the dealer,
that is appellant and his employee. He has already initiated the proceedings in a criminal case, After conducting the investigation, the police have filed the charge sheet only against the employee. Under these circumstances, the Court ought not to have come to the conclusion that the appellant, who is the dealer of the vehicle, is liable to pay the compensation.
respondent herein is the owner of the vehicle and there is no insurance policy for the said vehicle. The Court below has given finding that the accident happened because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. In that view of the matter, the owner of the vehicle alone is liable to pay the compensation, that is 4th respondent.
NC: 2023:KHC:46324 MFA No. 10349 of 2018
i) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay.
NC: 2023:KHC:46324 MFA No. 10349 of 2018
In view of the disposal of the main appeal, I.A.No.1/2022 does not survive for consideration,
accordingly, the same is disposed of.
SD/JUDGE
KTY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56 CT:SNN
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the motor accident claims tribunal had jurisdiction to hold the vehicle dealer liable for compensation when the fatal accident resulted from rash driving of the vehicle owner's driver.
Whether the appellant dealer is liable to pay the compensation awarded by the tribunal below exempting the insurance company.
CHANDRASHEKAR
SMT. INDRAMMA
N. RAVI
N. BHARATH
GIRIMADE GOWDA
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
LALITHA KANNEGANTI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
