Allowed

The Divisional Manager v. Mabusab @ Mahabubasab S/O Fakkirasab @ Fajrysab

Karnataka HC12 Oct 2023MFA/20769/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed three miscellaneous first appeals filed by an insurance company challenging liability awards. The court held that an 'Act' policy does not cover passengers in a private, non-commercial vehicle. Consequently, the insurance company was exonerated, and the vehicle owner was held liable to pay compensation.

What did the court decide?

The judgment and award dated 09.11.2012 stood modified to exonerate the insurance company from liability.

The Divisional Manager Vs Mabusab @ Mahabubasab… — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12396 MFA No. 20767 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 20768 of 2013 MFA No. 20769 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.20767/2013 (MV) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.20768/2013 (MV) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.20769/2013 (MV)

¶8

IN MFA.NO.20767/2013:

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LIFETIME, SUJATA COMPLEX, P.B.ROAD, NEAR GLASS HOUSE, HUBBALLI, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS DY. MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, ARIHANT COMPLEX, OPP: SBI ZONAL OFFICE, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI. …APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI S.S.GUNDI, ADVOCATE.)

¶12

Digitally signed by SUJATA SUBHASH PAMMAR

¶13

AND:

¶14

SHRI HUSENSAB S/O. TAJESAB ATTIGERI, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICUTURE AND COOLIE, R/O: YALAVATTI, TQ: SHIRAHATTI.

¶15

SHRI FAIZAL MOHMOD S/O. IBRAHIM JAMADAR, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: GOA, STATE GOA.

¶16

SHRI DAVALSAB HASANSAB MASUTI, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: YALAVATTI, TQ: SHIRAHATTI.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12396 MFA No. 20767 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 20768 of 2013 MFA No. 20769 of 2013

¶19

SHRI GAJABEERSAB KNYAL, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: GOA, CHANDRAWAD MR.FASTORDA GOA DIST: SOUTH GOA – 483 602.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI GIRISH BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SR G.N.NARASAMMANAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R2 – SERVICE OF NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT; R4 – NOTICE SERVED.)

¶21

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE COMMON JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.11.2012, PASSED IN MVC NO.28/2010, ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, LAXMESHWAR, ETC.,.

¶22

IN MFA.NO.20768/2013:

BETWEEN:

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI S.S.GUNDI, ADVOCATE)

¶27

AND:

¶28

SMT. MAMATAJ @ MAMATAJBEE, W/O. FAKKIRASAB NADAF, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: YALAVATTI, TQ: SHIRAHATTI.

¶29

SHRI FAIZAL MOHMOD S/O. IBRAHIM JAMADAR, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: GOA, STATE GOA.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12396 MFA No. 20767 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 20768 of 2013 MFA No. 20769 of 2013

¶32

SHRI DAVALSAB HASANSAB MASUTI, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: YALAVATTI, TQ: SHIRAHATTI.

¶33

SHRI GAJABEERSAB KNYAL, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: GOA, CHANDRAWAD MR.FASTORDA DIST: SOUTH GOA – 483 602.

¶34

…RESPONDENTS

¶35

(BY SRI GIRISH BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SR G.N.NARASAMMANAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R2 – SERVICE OF NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT; R4 – NOTICE SERVED.)

¶36

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE COMMON JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.11.2012, PASSED IN MVC NO.29/2010, ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, LAXMESHWAR, ETC.,.

¶37

IN MFA.NO.20769/2013:

BETWEEN:

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI S.S.GUNDI, ADVOCATE)

¶42

AND:

¶43

MABUSAB @ MAHABUBASAB S/O. FAKKIRASAB @ FAJRYSAB NADAF @ ATTIGERI, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: GUNDI WORK, R/O: YALAVATTI, TQ: SHIRAHATTI.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12396 MFA No. 20767 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 20768 of 2013 MFA No. 20769 of 2013

¶46

SHRI FAIZAL MOHMOD S/O. IBRAHIM JAMADAR, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: GOA, STATE GOA.

¶47

SHRI DAVALSAB HASANSAB MASUTI, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: YALAVATTI, TQ: SHIRAHATTI.

¶48

SHRI GAJABEERSAB KNYAL, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: GOA, CHANDRAWAD MR.FASTORDA DIST: SOUTH GOA – 483 602.

¶49

…RESPONDENTS

¶50

(BY SRI GIRISH BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI G.N.NARASAMMANAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R2 – SERVICE OF NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT; R4 – NOTICE SERVED.)

¶51

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE COMMON JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.11.2012, PASSED IN MVC NO.12/2010, ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, LAXMESHWAR, ETC.,.

¶52

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

¶53

JUDGMENT

¶54

These three appeals are filed by the insurance

¶55

company challenging the common judgment and award dated 09.11.2012, passed by the tribunal, in MVC Nos.28/2010, 29/2010 and 12/2010, challenging the liability fastened on the insurance company on the ground

¶56

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12396 MFA No. 20767 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 20768 of 2013 MFA No. 20769 of 2013

¶57

¶58

that the insurance policy is Act policy/Liability only policy and since the injured persons have travelled in the jeep as unauthorized passengers, the risk of the inmates of the private vehicle are not covered under the Act policy/Liability only policy.

¶59

The factum of accident and injuries suffered by

¶60

the claimants are not in dispute in these cases.

¶61

Heard the arguments and perused the records.

¶62

Admittedly in the present case the insurance policy pertaining to jeep No.GA-02/C-6121 is Act policy/Liability only policy, which is at Ex.R.1. From the complaint averments and other material it is proved that the injured persons were waiting for the bus in order to go to their village; at that time the jeep approached them and the driver of the jeep has instructed to board the jeep and when the claimants were travelling as inmates in the jeep along with other 7-8 passengers, met with accident and sustained injuries. Therefore it is proved that the

¶63

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12396 MFA No. 20767 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 20768 of 2013 MFA No. 20769 of 2013

¶64

claimants and other persons were travelling in the jeep. Therefore, the claimants and other persons have travelled as gratuitous passengers. Admittedly the vehicle in question is a private jeep which is not meant for using for commercial purpose.

¶65

Since the jeep is a private jeep and insurance policy is Act policy/Liability only policy. The issue involved is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court (Kalaburagi Bench) in the case of Divisional Manager,

¶66

United India Insurance Company Limited and others

¶67

vs. Shamaraya and others in MFA No.31781/2010 and connected matters disposed of on 22.12.2020 .

¶68

Therefore, the risk of the inmates of the jeep/car is not covered under the Act policy/Liability only policy. Therefore, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner and to pay compensation. Therefore the insurance company is exonerated from paying the compensation. The owner of the jeep shall pay

¶69

7 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12396 MFA No. 20767 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 20768 of 2013 MFA No. 20769 of 2013

¶70

compensation to the claimants. Therefore the appeals are liable to be allowed.

¶71

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶72

ORDER

¶73

i) All the three appeals are allowed.

¶74

ii) The judgment and awards dated 09.11.2012, passed by the tribunal, in MVC Nos.28/2010, 29/2010 and 12/2010, stand modified holding that the insurance company is exonerated from liability to pay compensation and owner of jeep shall pay compensation to the claimants.

¶75

iii) The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the tribunal and refunded to the appellant insurance company.

¶76

iv) No order as to costs.

¶77

v) Draw award accordingly.

¶78

MRK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 35 CT-ASC

¶79

SD/JUDGE

The Divisional Manager v. Mabusab @ Mahabubasab S/O Fakkirasab @ Fajrysab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Manager v. Mabusab @ Mahabubasab S/O Fakkirasab @ Fajrysab

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

Shivappa Vs M/S.Shantadurga

M/S Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd., Vs M/S Madavi Sales Corporation

Zubeda W/O. Hasansab Hulmani Vs Hanamanthappa S/O. Rangappa Shirhatti

The Managing Director Vs Shri.Mahadev Parappa Gudi

Shri.Madhukar S/O Changappa Patil Vs the United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

The Divisional Manager Vs Husensab S/O Tajesab Attigeri