Allowed

The Manager v. M.A. Sadiq Pasha @ Adil

Karnataka HC24 Nov 2023MFA/5439/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed an appeal by an insurer against a motor vehicle accident compensation award. The court set aside the tribunal's award, holding that an owner cannot file a claim petition against their own insurer for injuries sustained by the owner, as the insurance policy does not cover such risk under the Motor Vehicles Act.

What did the court decide?

The judgment and award dated 25.03.2013 passed in MVC No.69/2012 were set aside. The amount deposited was refunded to the appellant.

The Manager Vs M.A. Sadiq Pasha @ Adil — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:42512 MFA No. 5439 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5439 OF 2013(MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE MANAGER, BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, LAXMIPURAM, MYSORE, BY BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.31, GROUND FLOOR T.B.R. TOWERS, 1ST CROSS, NEW MISSION ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 024. BY ITS MANAGER.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

(BY SRI. O MAHESH, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

M.A. SADIQ PASHA @ ADIL, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O LATE AKBAR, BUSINESSMAN, R/O MAIN ROAD, SHANIVARSANTHE, SOMWARPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 236.

¶13

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:42512 MFA No. 5439 of 2013

¶14

H.S. SUDHAKAR,

¶15

AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O LATE SHANTHAPPA, HALAKODU VILLAGE, SHANIVARSANTHE HOBLI, SOMWARPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 236.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. CUCKOO DELHI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 26.06.2013, NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 25.03.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.69/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, MADIKERI, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF Rs.3,67,994/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. ON Rs.3,57,994/(EXCLUDING Rs.10,000/AWARDED TOWARDS FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES) FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.

¶19

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

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'MV Act' for short), challenging the judgment and award passed in MVC No.69/2012 dated 25.03.2013 by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Madikeri contending that the claim petition is not maintainable.

¶22

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:42512 MFA No. 5439 of 2013

¶23

The brief facts of the case are that on 22.12.2011, at about 8.35 p.m., when the petitioner was proceeding in his Maruthi Van bearing No.KA-09-TRH-6602 driven by respondent No.1 towards Hosur on Chinnalli road in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the compound wall. Due to which, the claimant sustained injuries and was shifted to Mangala Hospital, Hassan. Therefore, the claimant has filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking

¶24

compensation.

¶25

Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the records.

¶26

The nature of accident and injuries sustained by the claimant are not in dispute. The disputed fact in the present case is that whether the claim petition is maintainable or not?

¶27

In the present case, the claimant is the owner of the Maruthi Van bearing No.KA-09-TRH-6602 had

¶28

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:42512 MFA No. 5439 of 2013

¶29

sustained injuries in a road traffic accident, who was travelling in the said offending Van. The owner had himself filed claim petition against the driver and insurer of the Maruthi Van bearing No.KA-09-TRH-6602. Therefore, the claimant being insured and appellant being insurer are sailing on the same boat. The owner of the Maruthi Van filing claim petition against Insurance Company, who is none other than the insurer is nothing but filing claim petition against himself and thus, the claim petition is not maintainable. My view is fortified by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2013) 14 SCC 719

¶30

in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited

¶31

vs. Prabha Devi and others , wherein, at paragraph No.8

¶32

it is held as follows:-

¶33

"8. We have perused the judgment of this Court in Dhanraj. In that case, the appellant who was the insurer was travelling in the insured vehicle, which met with an accident. In the accident, the appellant as well as the other passengers received injuries. A number of claim petitions came to be filed. The appellant who was the insurer also filed a claim petition. The MACT held the driver of the jeep responsible for the accident. In all the

¶34

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:42512 MFA No. 5439 of 2013

¶35

claim petitions filed by the other passengers, MACT directed that the appellant (the owner) as well as the driver and the insurance company were liable to pay compensation. Furthermore, in the claim petition filed by the appellant, the MACT directed the driver and the Insurance Company to pay compensation to the appellant. The aforesaid finding of the MACT was upheld by the High Court in the appeal filed by the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company was, in appeal before this Court challenging the judgment of the High Court awarding compensation to the owner of the insured vehicle. Taking into consideration the provision contained in Section 147 of the Act, this Court observed as follows: (Dhanraj case, SCC pp. 555-56, paras 8-10)

¶36

"8. Thus, an insurance policy covers the liability incurred by the insured in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person (including an owner of the goods or his authorized representative) carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle. Section 147 does not require an insurance company to assume risk for death or bodily injury to the owner of the vehicle.""

¶37

9. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v.Sunita Rathi it has been held that the liability of an insurance company is only for the purpose of indemnifying the insured against liabilities incurred towards a third person or in respect of damages to property.

¶38

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:42512 MFA No. 5439 of 2013

¶39

Thus, where the insured i.e. on owner of the vehicle has no liability to a third party the insurance company has no liability also.

¶40

10. In this case, it has not been shown that the policy covered any risk for injury to the owner himself. We are unable to accept the contention that the premium of Rs.4989 paid under the heading 'Own damage' is for covering liability towards personal injury. Under the heading 'Own damage', the words 'premium on vehicle and non-electrical accessories' appear. It is thus clear that this premium is towards damage to the vehicle and not for injury to the person of the owner. An owner of a vehicle can only claim provided a personal accident insurance has been taken out. In this case there is no such insurance."

¶41

As per this principle, when the present case is considered, the owner has filed claim petition against Insurance Company, which is nothing but filing the claim against himself and therefore, appeal is not maintainable. The Tribunal has committed an error in this regard without appreciating this fact and legal principles. Hence, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. However,

¶42

¶43

NC: 2023:KHC:42512 MFA No. 5439 of 2013

¶44

liberty is reserved to claim on personal accident coverage,

¶45

if necessary premium is paid. Hence, I proceed to pass

¶46

the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

i. The appeal is hereby allowed .

¶49

ii. The judgment and award dated 25.03.2013, passed in MVC No.69/2012, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Madikeri, is hereby set aside.

¶50

iii. No order as to costs.

¶51

iv. The amount in deposit is ordered to be refunded to the appellant.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

MH/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 76 CT:SNN

The Manager v. M.A. Sadiq Pasha @ Adil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Manager v. M.A. Sadiq Pasha @ Adil

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

Shri. Andusignh Adoptive Vs Shri. Jayshing

Smt. Nagaveni W/O Mallappa Dodamni Vs Sri. Siddaramappa Siddappa Byadgi

Sri.Basappa S/O Bhimappa Neelammanavar Vs Shivamallappa S/O Bhimappa Neelammanavar

Sri S Murthy Vs Smt Arogya Mary

Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Sri Mallikarjunappa

Smt Pungudi Vs Mr Karthik K a