Partly allowed

L Arunkumar @ Arun v. Dinesh K

Karnataka HC20 Nov 2023MFA/3451/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed compensation claims filed by two appellant motor accident victims against an insurance company. The court held that the insurer is liable to pay the awarded compensation based on the Mukund Dewangan precedent, rejecting the insurer's argument that the matter was sub judice pending a larger bench reference.

What did the court decide?

Insurer directed to deposit compensation with accrued interest before the tribunal within 8 weeks.

L Arunkumar @ Arun Vs Dinesh K — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:42193 MFA No. 3451 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 3452 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3451 OF 2017 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3452 OF 2017 (MV-I)

¶3

IN MFA NO. 3451/2017

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

L. ARUNKUMAR @ ARUN S/O LAKSHMINARAYANA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS

¶6

R/AT BYCHAGUPPE TAVAREKERE

¶7

BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-560 081

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI.A.K. BHAT.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

DINESH K S/O KEMPALINGEGOWDA MAJOR

¶12

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

¶13

NO.25, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, IST CROSS RAGHAVENDRANAGAR TIMBERYARD LAYOUT BENGALURU -560 026

¶14

THE FUTURE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD NO.18/1(OLD NO.125/A), 3RD FLOOR ASHOKA PILLER ROAD IST BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU -560 011 BY ITS MANAGER

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. ASHOK KUMAR V., FOR; SRI B.C.SHIVANNA GOWDA.,ADVOCATE FOR R2; V/O DTD 02.11.2023, NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W)

¶17

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:42193 MFA No. 3451 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 3452 of 2017

¶18

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED28..10.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.993/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, (SCCH-18), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶19

IN MFA NO. 3452 OF 2017

¶20

BETWEEN:

¶21

K.R.MANJUNATHA @ NANDAN S/O RAMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT NO.5, KODIPALYA VIDYAPEETHA ROAD HONNALADEVI DEVASTHANAM KENGERI, BANGALORE SOUTH BENGALURU DISTRICT-560 060

¶22

…APPELLANT

¶23

(BY SRI.A K BHAT .,ADVOCATE)

¶24

AND:

¶25

DINESH K S/O KEMPALINGEGOWDA MAJOR NO.25, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, IST CROSS RAGHAVENDRANAGAR TIMBERYARD LAYOUT BENGALURU -560 026

¶26

THE FUTURE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD NO.18/1(OLD NO.125/A), 3RD FLOOR ASHOKA PILLER ROAD IST BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU -560 011 BY ITS MANAGER

¶27

…RESPONDENTS (BY NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH V.O.D 05.01.2021; SRI O.MAHESH., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶28

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:42193 MFA No. 3451 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 3452 of 2017

¶29

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28..10.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.993/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, (SCCH-18), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶30

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

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

Aggrieved by the award passed in MVC.No.993 and MVC.No.994/2014 dated 28.10.2016 on the file of the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Bengaluru, the claimants have filed MFA.No.3451/2017 and MFA.No.3452/2017.

¶33

The claim petitions are filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation of an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- each and the court below had granted compensation of an amount of Rs.1,57,000/in MVC.No.993/2014 and an amount of Rs.2,15,000/- in MVC.No.994/2014. When it comes to the liability, the court below has observed that the driver was having LMV (Non Transport) vehicle only. The offending vehicle is a light motor cab and the same comes within the purview of

¶34

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:42193 MFA No. 3451 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 3452 of 2017

¶35

transport vehicle and held that the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. It is the owner who is liable to pay the compensation.

¶36

The learned counsel for the claimant submits

¶37

that this issue is clearly covered by the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan -

¶38

Vs- The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd .¹ .

¶39

The learned counsel for the insurance company

¶40

submits that the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in

¶41

the case of Mukund Dewangan referred supra is referred to larger bench and in the course of hearing of Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that amendment of the provision is required. Hence till the said aspect is decided by the larger bench, the claimants cannot have the benefit of it.

¶42

1 (2017) 14 SCC 663

¶43

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:42193 MFA No. 3451 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 3452 of 2017

¶44

Having heard the learned counsel on either

¶45

side, perused the entire material on record. In this case, there is no dispute that the issue involved in this case is clearly covered by the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan Case . It is the contention of the learned counsel for the insurance company that as the matter was referred and the observation in the course of hearing was made by the larger bench, unless and until that is decided, these matters cannot be disposed off in the light of Mukund

¶46

Dewagan’s case . The said contention, this court is not able to appreciate and in-fact in the reference order or by the larger bench, no order is passed by the Larger Bench that unless the reference is ordered, the ratio in Mukund Dewangan’s Case should not be followed. In such an event, this court finds no force in the argument of the learned counsel for the insurance company.

¶47

Accordingly these two appeals filed by the

¶48

claimants are Allowed-in-part by holding that in the light

¶49

¶50

NC: 2023:KHC:42193 MFA No. 3451 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 3452 of 2017

¶51

of Mukund Dewagan’s Case referred supra , Insurance

¶52

Company is liable to pay the Compensation.

¶53

(a) Respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the said compensation amount with accrued interest before the tribunal within a period of 8 (Eight) weeks.

¶54

(b) The Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Record to the Tribunal along with the certified copy of the order passed by this court forthwith without any delay.

¶55

¶56

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

¶57

stand closed.

¶58

SD/JUDGE

¶59

TS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50

L Arunkumar @ Arun v. Dinesh K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L Arunkumar @ Arun v. Dinesh K

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

Mahadevaswamy Vs C R Arunkumar

Manjula Vs Jayaram K C

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt. Yashodamma

M/S National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Sri K v Ramanajanappa

Mr Jayarama Shetty Vs Smt Kumudha Shetty

Binay Kumar @ Vinay Kumar Vs K Umapathi