Remanded

Legal Manager v. Anantha M

Karnataka HC30 Aug 2023MFA/2473/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka set aside the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal where liability was determined without addressing the insurer's specific plea regarding a missing or misplaced cover note issued for a different vehicle type. The matter was remanded for fresh evidence and consideration.

What did the court decide?

The Award dated 13.02.2015 in M.V.C.No.344/2012 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Trial Court for fresh consideration within two months. Deposited amounts directed to Court.

Legal Manager Vs Anantha M — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:31168 MFA No. 2473 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 1921 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2473 OF 2016 (MV-I)

¶6

C/W

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1921 OF 2016 (MV-I) IN MFA NO. 2473/2016

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

LEGAL MANAGER, ICICI LOMBARD GIC LTD., NO.89, 2ND FLOOR, SVR COMPLEX, MADIVALA, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE - 68.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. B.C. SHIVANNEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRADEEP B, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

ANANTHA. M, S/O GOVINDA, NOW AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O MOVADY SCHOOL, MOVADY POST AND VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK - 576 201.

¶15

SUDHEER SEETHARAM THORATH, S/O SEETHARAMA THORATH, R/O KARAD TALUK, SATARA DISTRICT - 431 002.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SWATI G. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SERVICE AND NOTICE TO R2 IS ACCEPTED VIDE ORDER DATED 04.08.2023)

¶17

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:31168 MFA No. 2473 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 1921 of 2016

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.02.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.344/12 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, KUNDAPURA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.98,110/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

¶19

IN MFA NO. 1921/2016

¶20

BETWEEN:

¶21

ANANTHA. M, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O GOVINDA, R/O MOVADY SCHOOL, MOVADY POST AND VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK.

¶22

…APPELLANT

¶23

(BY SMT. SWATI G. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶24

AND:

¶25

SUDHEER SEETHARAM THORATH, S/O SEETHARAMA THORATH,

¶26

AGE: MAJOR,

¶27

R/O KARAD TALUK, SATARA DISTRICT.

¶28

ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., SVR COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR,MADIVALA, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE - 68.

¶29

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.C. SHIVANNEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRADEEP B, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 24.02.2022)

¶30

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:31168 MFA No. 2473 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 1921 of 2016

¶31

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.02.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.344/12 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDITIONAL MACT, KUNDAPURA, AWARDING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶32

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

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

Aggrieved by the award passed in M.V.C.No.344/2012 dated 13.02.2015 by the Senior Civil

¶35

Judge and Additional Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal at Kundapura, both the Insurance Company as well as the claimants are before this Court. The appeal of the Insurance Company is numbered as MFA.No.2473/2016 and the claimant's appeal is numbered as MFA.No.1921/2016. The Insurance Company is questioning the liability whereas the claimant filed the appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶36

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:31168 MFA No. 2473 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 1921 of 2016

¶37

The claim petition is filed by the claimant seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and the Court below has granted an amount of Rs.1,22,630/-. It is the case of the claimant that on 25.12.2011 at about 11:10 p.m., the claimant was proceeding in his car driven by himself, when the said car reached near Gangolli Police Station on N.H.66, Hosadu Village, Kundapura Taluk, at that time, a lorry belonging to the first respondent driven by its driver in a high speed and negligent manner came from Trasi side towards Kundapura side and dashed to the petitioner's car, due to the said impact, petitioner sustained grievous injuries and he spent lot of amounts towards treatment.

¶38

The respondent - Insurance Company has filed their counter before the Court stating that the respondent has not received any premium with regard to the fake cover note. As per the records, the company has issued cover note of that number to a two wheeler vehicle in Maharashtra. The cover note was expired due to non

¶39

¶40

NC: 2023:KHC:31168 MFA No. 2473 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 1921 of 2016

¶41

payment of premium. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. The Court below on the issue of liability, without even considering the defense taken by the Insurance Company that they have not insured the vehicle, without there being an insurance policy on record has held that the vehicle is insured with the Insurance Company and the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company further submits that when it is the specific plea that they have not insured the vehicle and when they have clearly stated that the cover note was issued in respect of a two wheeler, the Court below has fastened the liability on the Insurance Company.

¶42

Learned counsel appearing for the claimant

¶43

submits that though it is stated that the cover note is issued for a two wheeler, such cover note was not produced before the Court, the same was not marked. It is submitted that without examining anyone, without producing the said cover note, the respondents cannot

¶44

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:31168 MFA No. 2473 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 1921 of 2016

¶45

deny the liability. It is submitted that the Court below had rightly held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. Learned counsel submits that as far as the quantum of the compensation was concerned, the Court below has failed to consider the evidence on record and granted meager compensation. The compensation that is granted is not just and reasonable.

¶46

Having heard the learned counsel on either side,

¶47

perused the entire material on record. The Insurance Company has filed the written statement before the Court below and has taken a specific plea that the vehicle is not insured with them and even the cover note which is mentioned it is stated that the cover note is issued in respect of a two wheeler in the state of Maharashtra. In such case, the Tribunal without any finding has straight away given a finding that the offending vehicle is insured with the respondent - Insurance Company. Both the claimant and the Insurance Company have not adduced any evidence before the Court below. In that view of the

¶48

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:31168 MFA No. 2473 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 1921 of 2016

¶49

matter and in the interest of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the order and appeal and remand the matter for fresh consideration before the Court below.

¶50

Accordingly, the Award dated 13.02.2005 in M.V.C.No.344/2012 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court.

¶51

i. Both the parties are at liberty to adduce the evidence and the Court below shall decide the petition within a period of two months from the date of receipt of

¶52

the copy of the order without further notice from the Court, the party shall appear before the Tribunal on 15.11.2023.

¶53

ii. The amount that is deposited by the Insurance Company shall also be transmitted to the Court below. It shall be kept in the fixed deposit.

¶54

iii. 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.

¶55

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:31168 MFA No. 2473 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 1921 of 2016

¶56

iv. No costs.

¶57

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

¶58

closed.

¶59

SD/JUDGE

¶60

MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41 CT: BHK

Legal Manager v. Anantha M

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Legal Manager v. Anantha M

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Master Suraj

Sri Pradeep Vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance

Mr Mahesh T Vs Mr Muttu Selvam

Garison Engineer Vs Sanganna

National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Sri H J Somashekara

Sri Achuthan Kutty Vs the Regional Manager