Partly allowed

Sri Sunil Kumar C v. the Manager Hdfc Ergo Insurance Co. Ltd.

Karnataka HC6 Dec 2023MFA/456/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two miscellaneous first appeals were filed by claimants against a compensation award of a Claims Tribunal. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's assessment of the quantum but modified the order on liability, holding the insurance company liable to pay compensation at the first instance despite the driver's lack of a valid license, with liberty to recover from the owner.

What did the court decide?

The insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal along with interest within six weeks, with liberty to recover the amount from the owner of the offending ve

Sri Sunil Kumar C Vs the Manager Hdfc Ergo Insurance… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:44083 MFA No. 456 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 580 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 456 OF 2021(MV)

¶7

C/W

¶8

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 580 OF 2021(MV)

¶9

IN MFA 456/2021 BETWEEN:

¶10

Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

SRI SUNIL KUMAR C S/O LATE CHANDRASHEKARAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS GOVT EMPLOYEE R/AT SIDDARTHA NAGARA MALAVALLI TOWN MANDYA DISTRICT NOW R/AT C/O HOUSE OF DIWAKARA M S/O MALLESHA ARAKERE VILLAGE & HOBLI SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571434.

¶12

(BY SRI. VIJAY KUMAR T., ADVOCATE)

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE MANAGER

¶16

HDFC ERGO INSURANCE CO LTD IN FRONT OF SUB URBAN BUS STAND

¶17

MAHARAJA COMPLEX 1ST FLOOR MYSURU-570001.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:44083 MFA No. 456 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 580 of 2021

¶20

SRI ABDUL NADEEM S/O ABDUL KUDDUS AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS RA/T NO.92, N G O S COLONY RAJENDRA NAGARA MYSURU CITY-570007

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. A N KRISHNA SWAMY.,ADVOCATE FOR R1: NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.10.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO. 1395/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, SRIRANGAPATANA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶24

IN MFA 580/2021 BETWEEN:

¶25

SRI A R SIDDARAJU S/O REVANNA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS GOVT EMPLOYEE R/AT AGASANAPURA VILLAGE MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571430.

¶26

…APPELLANT

¶27

(BY SRI. VIJAY KUMAR T., ADVOCATE)

¶28

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:44083 MFA No. 456 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 580 of 2021

¶29

AND:

¶30

THE MANAGER HDFC ERGO INSURANCE CO LTD IN FRONT OF SUB URBAN BUS STAND MAHARAJA COMPLEX 1ST FLOOR, MYSURU-570001.

¶31

SRI ABDUL NADEEM S/O ABDUL KUDDUS AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS RA/T NO.92, N G O S COLONY RAJENDRA NAGARA MYSURU CITY-570007

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SRI. A N KRISHNA SWAMY.,ADVOCATE FOR R1: NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶34

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.10.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO. 1394/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, SRIRANGAPATANA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶35

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

¶36

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:44083 MFA No. 456 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 580 of 2021

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

These appeals under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been filed by the claimants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 3.10.2019 passed by MACT, Srirangapatna in MVC No.1395/2017 and MVC No.1394/2017 respectively.

¶39

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeals briefly stated are that on 3.2.2017 when the claimants were proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-11R-1624 near Petrol Bunk, Hebbakavadi, at that time, rider of another motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-09EL0276 being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the vehicle of the claimants. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.

¶40

The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation. It was pleaded that they

¶41

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:44083 MFA No. 456 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 580 of 2021

¶42

spent huge amount towards medical expenses,

¶43

conveyance charges, etc. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred purely on account of the rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle by its rider.

¶44

On service of notice, the respondents appeared through counsel and filed written statements in which the averments made in the petition were denied.

¶45

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the

¶46

Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimants themselves were examined as PWs-1 and 2 and Dr.Diwakar was examined as PW-3 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P19. On behalf of the respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R2. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle by its rider, as a result of which, the claimants sustained

¶47

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:44083 MFA No. 456 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 580 of 2021

¶48

injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant in MVC 1394/2017 is entitled to a compensation of Rs.12,000/- and claimant in MVC 1395/2017 is entitled for compensation of Rs.121,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the owner of the offending vehicle to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, the present appeals have been filed.

¶49

The learned counsel for the claimants has raised the following contentions:

¶50

a) Regarding quantum of compensation: The claimants have sustained grievous injuries and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side.

¶51

b) Liability: In respect of liability is concerned, even though the Tribunal has fastened the liability on the insured-owner of the offending vehicle on the ground that the rider of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident, in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

¶52

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:44083 MFA No. 456 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 580 of 2021

¶53

of PAPPU AND ORS. V. VINOD KUMAR LAMBA AND

¶54

ANR. [AIR 2018 SC 592] and in the case of NATIONAL

¶55

INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. SWARAN SINGH [(2004) 3

¶56

SCC 297] and in view of Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. BIJAPUR vs. YALLAVVA AND ANOTHER [ILR 2020 Kar.2239], even if the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing valid driving licence as on the date of accident, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimant at the first instance, with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeals filed by the claimants.

¶57

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised following counter contentions:

¶58

a) Regarding quantum of compensation: The injuries sustained by the claimants are minor in nature. Considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and

¶59

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:44083 MFA No. 456 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 580 of 2021

¶60

considering the age and avocation of the claimant, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal are just and reasonable and it does not call for interference.

¶61

b) Liability: It is not in dispute that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving licence as on the date of the accident which amounts to violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the Insurance Company from liability and fastened liability on the owner of the offending vehicle. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeals.

¶62

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and

¶63

perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

¶64

It is not in dispute that the claimants have sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on 3.2.2017 due to rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle by its rider.

¶65

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:44083 MFA No. 456 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 580 of 2021

¶66

The claimants have sustained injuries as mentioned

¶67

in the wound certificate. Considering the nature of injuries, age and avocation of the claimants and also considering the evidences of the claimants and doctor, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants is just and reasonable.

¶68

In respect of liability is concerned, the Tribunal after considering the materials available on record has rightly given a finding that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving licence as on the date of the accident and has fastened the liability on the insured to pay compensation to the claimants. However, in respect of claim of the claimants is concerned, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PAPPU AND OTHERS (supra), and in the case of SWARAN SINGH (supra) and in view of Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of YALLAVVA AND ANOTHER (supra), the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants at the first instance, with liberty to the

¶69

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:44083 MFA No. 456 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 580 of 2021

¶70

Insurance Company to recover the same from the owner

¶71

of the offending vehicle.

¶72

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶73

ORDER

¶74

a) The appeals are allowed in part .

¶75

b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶76

c) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount in both the cases as awarded by the Tribunal along with interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Thereafter, the Insurance Company is at liberty to recover the said amount from the owner of the offending vehicle.

¶77

Sd/JUDGE

¶78

¶79

List No.: 3 Sl No.: 51

Sri Sunil Kumar C v. the Manager Hdfc Ergo Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sunil Kumar C v. the Manager Hdfc Ergo Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R Basavaraju Vs J Ramaiah

Smt. Rani Shashikala Devi Vs Tower Vision India Pvt. Ltd.

Sri. Manjunath. a. S. Vs Sri. Arjun. G. K.

Venkatesh E Vs the Managing Director Bmtc

Smt R Ambika Vs the Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Prashanta Kumar Sahu Vs Shashikanta Patra