Partly allowed

B R Sadananda v. B M Chandra

Karnataka HC20 Dec 2023MFA/467/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the miscellaneous first appeal partly, holding that the Insurance Company is liable to pay Rs. 1,02,000 to a third-party cleaner injured by a rashly driven auto, as he is a third party to the policy. The order directed the insurer to deposit the amount.

What did the court decide?

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit Rs. 1,02,000 within eight weeks; claimant may withdraw the amount without furnishing security.

B R Sadananda Vs B M Chandra — Consumer Protection | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:46649 MFA No. 467 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 467 OF 2017 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

B R SADANANDA, S/O RAJU @ RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/AT HALEBUDANUR VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK & DISTRICT - 571 401.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. K.L. SREENIVAS, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

B M CHANDRA,

¶13

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

¶14

S/O LATE B.K. MADAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, R/AT HALEBUDANUR VILLAGE, KASAB HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 571 401.

¶15

THE ORINETAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., M.H.BORAIAH BUILDING, V.V.ROAD, MANDYA - 571 401, REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER.

¶16

K.N. GURUSWAMY, S/O NAGAIAH, AGE: MAJOR R/AT KOMMERAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK & DISTRICT - 571 401.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:46649 MFA No. 467 of 2017

¶19

IFFCO - TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., OPP DDPI OFFICE, K R ROAD, C/O KACARD BANK, VIDHYA NAGAR, MANDYA - 571 401, REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANGER.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. JAGADEESH H.T, ADVOCATE; SRI. JANARDHANA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. B.C. SHIVANNA GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 VIDE ORDER DATED 19.04.2023 NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.09.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.1196/14 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & CJM, MANDYA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶23

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

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Aggrieved by the award passed in M.V.C.No.1196/2014 dated 20.09.2016 by the I Addl.

¶26

Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mandya, whereby the Tribunal had held that the owner of the vehicle alone is liable to pay the compensation and not the Insurance Company, the claimant is before this Court.

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:46649 MFA No. 467 of 2017

¶28

According to the claimant, on 23.03.2014, he was travelling in a goods auto as a cleaner. The driver of the goods auto drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the auto from behind after hitting a tree. The claimant had sustained as many as four fractures and one lacerated wound. The police have filed the charge sheet against the driver of the goods auto in which the claimant was travelling as a cleaner.

¶29

The Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the owner cum driver of the goods auto is at fault and as the charge sheet is filed against him, the owner alone is liable to pay the compensation and granted compensation of an amount of Rs.1,02,000/- which has to be paid by the owner alone.

¶30

Learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that the claimant is a third party to the insurance policy. The observation of the Court below might have

¶31

been right if the owner himself is the claimant as he himself is the tortfeasor. But he is the cleaner in the said

¶32

¶33

NC: 2023:KHC:46649 MFA No. 467 of 2017

¶34

goods auto and third party to the insurance policy and the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation.

¶35

Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that the Court below had rightly exonerated the Insurance Company as the charge sheet is filed against the owner cum driver of the vehicle.

¶36

Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the entire material on record. The Court below went wrong in observing that as the driver cum owner of the vehicle is at fault, the amount has to be paid by the owner and not the insured. In this case, the claimant is a third party, there is a valid insurance policy as on the date of accident and because of the negligence on the part of the driver of the goods auto the claimant had sustained injuries. In such case, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation.

¶37

Accordingly, the appeal of the claimant is allowed-in-part holding that respondent No.2 -

¶38

¶39

NC: 2023:KHC:46649 MFA No. 467 of 2017

¶40

Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation of an amount of Rs.1,02,000/-.

¶41

i. The respondent No.2 - Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any security.

¶42

ii. 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.

¶43

iii. No costs.

¶44

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶45

SD/JUDGE

¶46

MEG zList No.: 1 Sl No.: 6 CT: BHK

B R Sadananda v. B M Chandra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B R Sadananda v. B M Chandra

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

Dinesh N Vs Sri. Nanda Kumar v

Chandrashekar Vs Smt Indramma

Chinnappaiah @ Chikkappaiah Vs Ramesh

Smt. Kalleshappa @ Kallesh Vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.

Jeson Saldanha Vs Arun D Souza

Sri. Shivakumar Vs the Divisional Manager