Dismissed

Shankara Gowda v. Smt. Sujatha

Karnataka HC25 Jul 2023MFA/1144/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court, hearing miscellaneous first appeals filed by the owner-driver of a Maruthi Omni against three motor vehicle claim petitions, examined whether a liability-only insurance policy covered the vehicle's occupants. Upholding the Tribunal's award of global compensation to the injured occupants, the High Court dismissed the appeals, confirming that the owner is personally liable as the policy

What did the court decide?

Interpretation of the insurance policy was construed as liability-only; liability fastened upon the vehicle owner; appeals dismissed; Tribunal judgment and award confirmed.

Shankara Gowda Vs Smt. Sujatha — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:26269 MFA No. 1144 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 1142 of 2017 MFA No. 1143 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1144 OF 2017 (MV-I)

¶7

C/W

¶8

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1142 OF 2017 (MV-I) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1143 OF 2017 (MV-I)

¶9

IN M.F.A NO. 1144 OF 2017

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SHANKARA GOWDA, S/O. DURGAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, DRIVER, R/AT: 'A' BLOCK, ASHRAYA EXTENSION, BOMMANAKATTE, SHIVAMOGGA CITY-577 201

¶12

Digitally signed by T S NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

(BY SRI U PANDURANGA NAYAK, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

…APPELLANT

¶16

SMT. SUJATHA, W/O. RAMESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, HOUSE NO.1451E, NELAVAGILU, SHIKARIPURA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 427.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:26269 MFA No. 1144 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 1142 of 2017 MFA No. 1143 of 2017

¶19

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., B.H.ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA CITY-577 201.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. H.R. ANITHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI C SHANKARA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.11.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.494/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AND MACT, SHIKARIPURA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.20,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. ON THE COMPENSATION FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE REALIZATION.

¶23

IN M.F.A NO. 1142 OF 2017

¶24

BETWEEN:

¶25

SHANKARA GOWDA, S/O. DURGAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, DRIVER, R/AT: 'A' BLOCK, ASHRAYA EXTENSION, BOMMANAKATTE, SHIVAMOGGA CITY-577 201.

¶26

...APPELLANT

¶27

(BY SRI U PANDURANGA NAYAK, ADVOCATE)

¶28

AND:

¶29

1 . SRI DEVENDRAPPA B, S/O. DURUGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT: HOUSE NO.14-1, NELAVAGILU-2, SHIKARIPURA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 427.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC:26269 MFA No. 1144 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 1142 of 2017 MFA No. 1143 of 2017

¶32

2 . UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD, B.H.ROAD,

¶33

SHIVAMOGGA CITY-577 201.

¶34

(POLICY NO. 240400311P106143749 DATED 08/11/2014 TO 07/11/2015)

¶35

…RESPONDENTS

¶36

(BY SMT. H.R ANITHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI C SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶37

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.11.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.493/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AND MACT, SHIKARIPURA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.30,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. ON THE COMPENSATION FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE REALIZATION THERE OF.

¶38

IN M.F.A. NO. 1143 OF 2017

¶39

BETWEEN:

¶40

SHANKARA GOWDA, S/O. DURGAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, DRIVER, R/AT: 'A' BLOCK, ASHRAYA EXTENSION, BOMMANAKATTE, SHIVAMOGGA CITY-577 201.

¶41

...APPELLANT

¶42

(BY SRI U PANDURANGA NAYAK, ADVOCATE)

¶43

AND :

¶44

1 . SRI SHASIKUMAR, S/O. KOTRA BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, NELAVAGILU, SHIKARIPURA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 427.

¶45

¶46

NC: 2023:KHC:26269 MFA No. 1144 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 1142 of 2017 MFA No. 1143 of 2017

¶47

2 . UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., B.H.ROAD,

¶48

SHIVAMOGGA CITY-577 201.

¶49

(POLICY NO. 240400311P106143749 DATED 08/11/2014 TO 07/11/2015)

¶50

…RESPONDENTS

¶51

(BY SMT. H.R ANITHA, ADVOCAT FOR R1; SRI C SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶52

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.11.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.495/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AND MACT, SHIKARIPURA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 20,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. ON THE COMPENSATION FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE REALIZATION.

¶53

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

¶54

JUDGMENT

¶55

Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and MACT, Shikaripura, in MVC Nos.494/2015, 493/2015 and 495/2015 on 03-11-2016, the respondent No.1/owner of the offending vehicle -Shankara Gowda, has approached this Court in appeals.

¶56

The appellant-Shankaragowda, was the

¶57

respondent No.1 in all the claim petitions before the Tribunal. The petitioners before the Tribunal filed claim

¶58

¶59

NC: 2023:KHC:26269 MFA No. 1144 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 1142 of 2017 MFA No. 1143 of 2017

¶60

petitions contending that on 30-12-2014 at about 4.15 p.m. when they along with their relatives were traveling in Maruthi Omni bearing Reg.No.KA.20.M.2924 from Shivamogga towards Shikaripura on ShivamoggaSavalanga-Shikaripura road, near Nandihalli cross of Shikaripura, the respondent No.1 being the driver of the said Omni car drove the same in high speed in negligent manner and dashed against the goods auto bearing Reg.No.KA.15.7632. It was contended that due to the accident, the petitioners in all these claim petitions sustained injuries and they were admitted to Shikaripura Government Hospital then they were shifted to Nanjappa Hospital, Shivamogga. Therefore, they sought for

¶61

adequate compensation for having suffered injuries in the said accident from the owner and insurer of the omni car.

¶62

On issuance of notice, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 appeared before the Tribunal through their counsel and filed their objection statements.

¶63

¶64

NC: 2023:KHC:26269 MFA No. 1144 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 1142 of 2017 MFA No. 1143 of 2017

¶65

The respondent No.1 who was the driver- cum-

¶66

owner of the offending vehicle contended that he was not at all negligent in driving the said vehicle and that the vehicle was covered by the insurance policy issued by respondent No.2. He has also contended that the petitions are bad for non joinder of necessary parties.

¶67

Respondent No.2- Insurance Company contended that the driver of the Maruthi Omni was not having a valid and effective driving licence and that the policy issued by it was "liability only policy" and therefore, the occupants of the Maruthi Omni was not covered by the Insurance.

¶68

On the basis of the above pleadings, appropriate issues were framed by the Tribunal. In all the petitions, common evidence was led and the petitioners in all the petitions were examined as PWs 1 to 3 and Exs.P1 to P18 were marked. The officer of the respondent No.2Insurance Company was examined as RW1 and Ex.R1 to R4 were marked. The respondent No.1 was examined as RW2 and Ex.R5 was marked.

¶69

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:26269 MFA No. 1144 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 1142 of 2017 MFA No. 1143 of 2017

¶70

After hearing the arguments by both the sides, the

¶71

Tribunal awarded global compensation in all the petitions

¶72

as per the table below:

¶73

SL. NO.	MFA NUMBER	MVC NUMBER	COMPENSATION AWARDED BY THE TRIBUNAL (IN RS.)
1	1144/2017	494/2017	20,000/-
2	1142/2017	493/2017	30,000/-
3	1143/2017	495/2017	20,000/-

¶74

After determining the compensation as above, the Tribunal held that the policy issued by the respondent No.2 was "Liability only Policy" and therefore, the inmates of the Maruthi Omni were not covered by the Insurance and as such, fastened the liability on the respondent No.1/owner.

¶75

Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the respondent No.1/ owner of the vehicle is before this Court in appeals.

¶76

NC: 2023:KHC:26269 MFA No. 1144 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 1142 of 2017 MFA No. 1143 of 2017

¶77

¶78

The appellant/respondent No.1- owner of the offending vehicle contends that he is the owner of the vehicle which was for his self use and not for hiring purpose and the petitioners were known to him. He contended that though the vehicle was fully covered by the insurance policy issued by the respondent No.2, the Tribunal has erroneously fastened the liability on him.

¶79

On issuance of notice, the respondent No.1 in all the appeals who are the petitioners have appeared through their counsel and respondent No.2- Insurance Company has also appeared through its counsel in all the appeals.

¶80

The Tribunal records have been secured and arguments by both the sides were heard.

¶81

The only point that arises is regarding the validity of the insurance policy issued by the insurance company

¶82

as against the occupants of Maruthi Omni.

¶83

¶84

NC: 2023:KHC:26269 MFA No. 1144 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 1142 of 2017 MFA No. 1143 of 2017

¶85

A perusal of the Ex.R2, the policy issued by

¶86

respondent No.2-Insurance Company discloses that, it was a "Liability only policy" but not the "Package policy". It is also evident that the total premium of Rs.1,339/- was paid which cover compulsory premium for the owner and driver only. It is also evident that it is the liability only policy and therefore, the inmates of the Maruthi Omni were not covered by the policy of insurance. The Tribunal in its judgment at para No.21 has discussed these aspects

¶87

and has come to the conclusion that the policy never covered the injuries suffered by the inmates of the Maruthi Omni and therefore, it came to the conclusion that the liability has to be fastened upon the appellant/owner.

¶88

In coming to such a conclusion, it has relied upon the decision in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limtied Vs. Zaharunisha and others,¹ United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Tilak Singh and others,² New India Assurance Company Limited Vs.

¶89

1 2008 ACT 1928

¶90

2 2006 ACJ 1441

¶91

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:26269 MFA No. 1144 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 1142 of 2017 MFA No. 1143 of 2017

¶92

Harpal Singh and others³ . There are no reasons to hold

¶93

that the conclusions reached by the Tribunal are erroneous in any aspect. The appellant is unable to show as to how

¶94

the policy covers the inmates of the maruthi omni and as such the liability should have been fastened upon the respondent No.2-Insurance Company. Hence, the appeals are bereft of any merits and as such, they have to be dismissed. Hence, the following

¶95

ORDER

¶96

MFA Nos. 1144/2017, 1142/2017 and 1143/2017

¶97

filed by the appellant/respondent No.1-owner of the maruthi Omni are hereby dismissed.

¶98

The common judgment and award passed by the

¶99

Tribunal in MVC Nos.494/2015, 493/2015 and 495/2015 on 3-11-2016 are hereby confirmed.

¶100

3 2014(2)TAC 899 (del)