Allowed

B. E. Chandrashekar v. Thejus

Karnataka HC30 Oct 2023MFA/1067/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The HC allowed the appeal against dismissal of a death compensation claim. The court held that misrepresentation of the person driving (settling a minor without license) did not absolve the insurer. Liability lies with the insurer, who can recover from the owner. The matter was remanded for adjudication of quantum.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; matter remanded to Trial Court for adjudication of quantum of compensation and to issue notice to the owner of the vehicle.

B. E. Chandrashekar Vs Thejus — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:38255 MFA No. 1067 of 2017

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1067 OF 2017 (MV-D)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

B. E. CHANDRASHEKAR, S/O EREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST,

¶9

B. C. BHAVANI SHANKAR S/O B.E. CHANDRASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,

¶10

KUM. B.C. BHOOMIKA, D/O B.E. CHANDRASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS,

¶11

Digitally signed by JAI JYOTHI J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

APPELLANT NO.3 SINCE MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, APPELLANT NO.1,

¶13

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF BIGGANAHALLI VILLAGE, K.R. PETE POST, CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 133.

¶14

…APPELLANTS

¶15

(BY SRI. K.N. MOHAN, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THEJUS

¶18

S/O. AJJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O BIGGANAHALLI VILLAGE, K. R. PETE POST, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 133.

¶19

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:38255 MFA No. 1067 of 2017

¶20

B. B. SOMEGOWDA, S/O. BHADREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, LIC AGENT, R/O. BIGGANAHALLI VILLAGE, K. R. PETE POST,

¶21

CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 133.

¶22

THE MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R1 AND R2 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶25

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.10.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.370/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE 2ND ADDL.SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT CHIKKAMANGALURU AND MACT, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

¶26

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

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

The claimants have preferred this appeal aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition i.e., M.V.C.No.370/2015 dated 22.10.2016. The claim petition

¶29

was filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- for the death of the deceased - pillion rider in the accident that took place on 06.02.2015.

¶30

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:38255 MFA No. 1067 of 2017

¶31

The case of the claimants is that claimant No.1 is

¶32

the husband and claimant Nos.2 and 3 are the son and daughter of the deceased. It is their case that on 06.02.2015 at about 6:45 p.m., the deceased was proceeding on a motor cycle as a pillion rider from Chikkmagaluru to Bigganahalli road near Malaluru driven by the first respondent which belongs to the second respondent. The first respondent drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and jumped on a road hump in order to control the vehicle dashed against a stray cattle. The deceased lost control and fell down from the motor cycle and due to this accident, she had sustained grievous injury to head and other parts of the body. She was taken to M.G.Hospital, Chikkmagaluru wherein she had taken first aid treatment. Thereafter, she was shifted to Chamarajendra Hospital, Hassan wherein the injured succumbed to the injuries and the claimants have spent huge amount for the treatment.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC:38255 MFA No. 1067 of 2017

¶35

The Court below had dismissed the claim petition considering Ex.R.2 (MLC Register), which is filed on behalf of the Insurance Company. At the initial stage, when the deceased was taken to the hospital, her husband i.e., claimant No.1 had stated before them that the son - claimant No.2 who was a minor was riding the bike. The Court below considering the fact that, with all misrepresentation of facts, they have come before the Court and mainly relying on Ex.R.2 had dismissed the claim petition.

¶36

Learned counsel appearing for the claimant

¶37

submits that the insurance package is a comprehensive package and the deceased is a pillion rider. Even if the observation of the Court has to be considered that the minor was driving the vehicle, still the deceased is entitled

¶38

for compensation. He submits that the Court below without considering any of the relevant aspects had dismissed the claim petition.

¶39

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:38255 MFA No. 1067 of 2017

¶40

Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance

¶41

Company submits that misrepresenting the facts and for the purpose of claiming the compensation, they have filed the claim petition. Ex.R.2 which is filed on their behalf clearly shows that at the first instance, the husband of the deceased had stated before the duty doctor that his son who is claimant No.2 who is a minor was driving the vehicle. The Court below considering all these facts had rightly dismissed the claim petition. Learned counsel submits that there is no illegality in the award passed by the MACT.

¶42

Having heard the learned counsel on either side,

¶43

perused the entire material on record. There is no doubt in this case that Ex.R.2 is contrary to the pleadings of the

¶44

claimants. On the ground that they have come before the Court on misrepresentation of facts, that itself cannot be a ground to the Tribunal to dismiss the claim petition. This is a case of death where the wife of claimant No.1 and the mother of claimant Nos.2 and 3 had lost her life. Even if the contents of Ex.R.2 are taken into consideration that

¶45

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:38255 MFA No. 1067 of 2017

¶46

the minor son was driving the vehicle and because of his negligence the mother who was a pillion rider has died. As the policy is comprehensive policy, still the owner and insurer of the vehicle are liable to pay the compensation. In this case, the vehicle is given to a minor who was not having a valid driving license. The Insurance Company has to pay the compensation and shall recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.

¶47

Coming to the compensation, as the Court below had dismissed the claim petition, there is no discussion on the aspect of compensation. Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to remand the matter only on quantum and the Court below shall adjudicate on quantum.

¶48

Accordingly, the appeal of the claimants is allowed and case is remanded back to the Trial Court. So far as the issue of liability is concerned, Insurance Company shall pay and recover from the owner of the vehicle. Before this Court, though notice is served, no vakalath is

¶49

¶50

NC: 2023:KHC:38255 MFA No. 1067 of 2017

¶51

filed on behalf of the owner of the vehicle. The Court below shall issue notice to the owner of the vehicle.

¶52

i. Without further notice, the claimants and the Insurance Company shall appear before the MACT on 15.11.2023 and the Tribunal shall decide the case within two months from 15.11.2023.

¶53

SD/JUDGE

¶54

MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31 CT: BHK

B. E. Chandrashekar v. Thejus

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. E. Chandrashekar v. Thejus

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Sudhakara Shetty Vs Sri Nagaraja

Dorethi Mascarenhas Vs P M Narayana

H S Jagadheesha Vs the Manager

Mr Kurshad Alam Vs the Manaing Director

Sri Anand Kumar M Vs the Director

Shalini K.N. Vs H.M. Chandrashekhar