Dismissed

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Sri. Kumar

Karnataka HC20 Jun 2023MFA/2596/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this motor vehicle accident case, the Karnataka High Court dismissed the appeal filed by an insurance company. The court upheld the lower tribunal's finding of equal contribution to rash and negligence by both the Tata Sumo driver and the KSRTC bus driver, confirming the awarded compensation.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed and the impugned judgment and award dated 11.01.2016 were confirmed.

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:21213 MFA No. 2596 of 2016

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2596 OF 2016 (MV-I)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.112, 1^ST FLOOR, STREET ROAD, NEAR CANARA BANK, GEDDALAHALLI, ASHWATHNAGAR BUS STOP, BANGALORE.

¶10

REP: BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, 6^TH FLOOR, KRUSHI BHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 001. …APPELLANT

¶11

Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SRI. SHANKARA REDDY C.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SRI. KUMAR S/O CHIKKAHAIDHE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT CHAMANAGALLI VILLAGE, MADUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428.

¶15

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD DO-11 NO.663, 1^ST FLOOR, 1^ST MAIN,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:21213 MFA No. 2596 of 2016

¶18

DEFENCE COLONY, INDIRANAGAR 1^ST STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 038.

¶19

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR CENTRAL DIVISION, K.H.ROAD SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027.

¶20

SRI. UMESH S/O SHIVANNA, NO.236, JNANAJYOTHINAGAR, MALLATHHALLI, BANGALORE -,560 056.

¶21

SRI.NAGARAJU

¶22

S/O GANGADARAIAH R/AT JALAMANGALA, KOOTAGAL HOBLI, RAMANAGARAM TALUK AND DISTRICT-571 511.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. P SURESH ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI.B.C. SEETHARAMA RAO ADVOCATE FOR R2; SMT. JYOTHI.N, ADVOCATE FOR R3;

¶25

V/O DATED 08.02.2023, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R4 IS HELD SUFFICIENT; R5 IS SERVED;)

¶26

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED11.01.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.3841/12 ON THE FILE OF THE 7TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT-3, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.3,92,550/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

¶27

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

¶28

¶29

NC: 2023:KHC:21213 MFA No. 2596 of 2016

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

The present appeal is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 11.01.2016 passed in MVC.No.3841/2012 by the VII Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-3, Bengaluru, praying for modification of the aforesaid judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

¶32

The factum of accident is not in dispute.

¶33

Heard the arguments from both sides and

¶34

perused the records.

¶35

Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance

¶36

Company submitted that the driver of the Tata Sumo was not at all rash and negligent, but the driver of the KSRTC was rash and negligent. Therefore, submitted that the entire rashness and negligence may be fastened on the driver of the KSRTC. Therefore, prays to allow the appeal by modifying the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

¶37

NC: 2023:KHC:21213 MFA No. 2596 of 2016

¶38

¶39

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1-claimant justified the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

¶40

In the present case, the manner of accident is that the claimant was riding the motor cycle and it was dashed by Tata Sumo as the driver of Tata Suma was driving the same in a rash and negligent manner and due to which, the claimant fell on the road and at the same time, KSRTC bus driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the motor cycle of the claimant, due to which, the claimant had sustained grievous injuries.

¶41

Therefore, considering the facts and

¶42

circumstances and scenario of the accident revealed on the record and appreciating the evidence on record, the claimant was first hit by Tata Sumo vehicle. If the claimant was not dashed by Tata Sumo, then the claimant could not have fallen on the ground and the accident could have been avoided. But the driver of the Tata Sumo had dashed the motor cycle of the claimant, due to which, the claimant was

¶43

NC: 2023:KHC:21213 MFA No. 2596 of 2016

¶44

¶45

constrained to fell on the ground, then the KSRTC bus had hit the claimant.

¶46

Therefore, considering these aspects, the Tribunal

¶47

is justified in holding that the driver of Tata Sumo has contributed 50% of rashness and negligence and the driver of the KSRTC had contributed 50% of rashness and negligence. Therefore, it is proved that both the drivers have equally contributed to the accident and it is correctly held by the Tribunal. Therefore, no good ground is made out to cause interference with the findings given by the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following

¶48

ORDER

¶49

i. The appeal is dismissed .

¶50

ii. The impugned judgment and award dated 11.01.2016 passed in MVC.No.3841/2012 by the VII Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-3, Bengaluru, is hereby confirmed.

¶51

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:21213 MFA No. 2596 of 2016

¶52

iii. No order as to costs.

¶53

iv. The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶54

v. Registry is directed to transmit the TCR along with copy of this order to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

PB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Sri. Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Sri. Kumar

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

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri N P Santhosh @ Santhosh

Venkatesha Vs Ajaysharma

Smt Doddamma Vs the Executive Officer

M/S National Insurance Company Limited Vs Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation

Executive Engineer (Electrical) Vs Siddegowda @Ramu

Master Adithya M Vs M/S L & T General Insurance Co.Ltd.