Allowed

The Divisional Manager, National v. Sri. Jotiba S/O Krishna Gurav

Karnataka HC17 Aug 2023MFA/22481/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Insurance Company appealed a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal order awarding compensation to a passenger in a tempo trax. The Court observed the claimant was a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle used for unauthorized transport. Consequently, the insurer was exonerated from payment liability, which was to be borne by the vehicle owner.

What did the court decide?

The judgment and award dated 10.02.2011 are modified to exempt the appellant-insurer; Respondent No.4 is directed to pay compensation with 6% interest.

The Divisional Manager, National Vs Sri. Jotiba S/O… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:9033 MFA No. 22481 of 2011

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.22481/2011(MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 1732, RAMADEV GALLI, BELGAUM, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, A.P.KULKARNI, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, RAMADEV GALLI, BELGAUM.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI SURESH S. GUNDI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

Digitally signed by SUJATA SUBHASH PAMMAR

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI JOTIBA

¶13

S/O KRISHNA GURAV, AGE:33 YEARS, OCC:SERVICE, R/O: RAMALING GALLI, NAVAGE, TQ AND DIST:BELGAUM.

¶14

SRI SHIVARAJ S/O. BASAVANTAPPA NAIK, AGE:MAJOR, OCC:BUSINESS, R/O: 992, 5^TH CROSS,

¶15

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:9033 MFA No. 22481 of 2011

¶16

SHIVAJI NAGAR, BELGAUM.

¶17

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD, MARUTI GALLI, BELGAUM.

¶18

JAYANTIBHAI S. BHAVASAR, DIRECTOR OF TECHNO FILTERS PVT. LTD., 148, 149 MACHCHE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, BELGAUM.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI SHREEVATSA S. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI N.R.KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R1 AND R4 ARE SERVED)

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.02.2011 PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELGAUM IN MVC NO.1112/2005. PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

NC: 2023:KHC-D:9033 MFA No. 22481 of 2011

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

The appeal is filed by the Insurance Company calling in question the judgment and award dated 10.02.2011, in M.V.C. No.1112/2005, passed by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge & Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belgaum, on the ground that the claimant was gratuitous passenger in the Tempo Trax goods vehicle. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation.

¶27

On 20.09.2004 at about 1.30 p.m. the claimant was traveling in the Tempo Trax bearing registration No.KA-22/8988 from Belgaum to Khanapur as an occupant in the said Tempo Trax and when they reached near Shivaji Statue at Peeranwadi on Belgaum-Khanapur Road, a Truck bearing registration No.KA-22/B-4142 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the Tempo Trax resulting which the driver of the Tempo Trax and claimant have sustained injuries.

¶28

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:9033 MFA No. 22481 of 2011

¶29

The Tribunal held that the both drivers of Truck

¶30

and Tempo Trax are equally responsible for the accident due to their rash and negligent driving.

¶31

The appellant-Insurance Company is the insurer of Tempo Trax bearing registration No.KA.22/8988. It is the contention urged by the appellant that the vehicle is Tempo Trax goods vehicle and the claimant has travelled in the said vehicle as gratuitous passenger. Therefore, Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation.

¶32

Admittedly, in the present case, the Tempo Trax is a goods vehicle. From the complaint averment, Ex.P.1 itself revealed that the claimant has travelled in the Tempo Trax besides sitting to the driver. The claimant in his evidence in the course of the cross-examination has admitted that his employer is one Atul Bhavasar and he is

¶33

working in Techno Filters Pvt. Ltd. from 15 years. Therefore, it is proved that the claimant is not a cleaner in the Tempo Trax and has not travelled in the said Tempo Trax as an authorized representative of goods or owner of the goods. Therefore, when from the evidence of the

¶34

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:9033 MFA No. 22481 of 2011

¶35

claimant-PW.1 itself proved that he was working in some other company under different employer and therefore, he is not an employee in the Tempo Trax. Hence, it is proved that the claimant has travelled in the said Tempo Trax as an unauthorized passenger. But the Tempo Trax is a goods vehicle. Therefore, it is proved that the claimant is a gratuitous passenger. Hence, Tempo Trax is used for the purpose other than permitted. Hence, there is violation of conditions of insurance policy. Therefore, the Insurance Company of the Tempo Trax is not liable to indemnify the owner and to pay the compensation. Hence, respondent No.4 is liable to pay compensation to the claimant. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

i) The appeal is allowed. ii) The judgment and order dated 10.02.2011, in M.V.C. No.1112/2005, passed by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge & Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belgaum is modified to the

¶38

- 6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:9033 MFA No. 22481 of 2011

¶39

extent that the appellant-Insurance Company is exonerated from the payment of compensation.

¶40

iii) Respondent No.4 is directed to pay compensation to the claimant with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶41

SD/JUDGE

¶42

SSP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 40 CT-ASC

The Divisional Manager, National v. Sri. Jotiba S/O Krishna Gurav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Manager, National v. Sri. Jotiba S/O Krishna Gurav

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

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Suvarna W/O Anand @ Ajjappa Goravankolla

The Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Prakash Channabasappa Angadi

Veeresh @ Veeranna S/O Prakash Angadi, Vs Prakash S/O Channabasappa Angadi

Spl Tahasildar Vs Shambulingappa

Ajjaiah S/O Lakkappa Vs Shaik Ali Akbar S/O Shaik Khajamiya

Ravi S/O Gudadappa Vs Shaik Ali Akbar S/O Shaik Khajamiya