Partly allowed

M/S Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. v. D Raju

Karnataka HC8 Nov 2023MFA/9127/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Insurance company appealed against compensation awards following a motor accident. The High Court held the company liable to deposit the awarded amounts immediately. The claimants can withdraw the money upon this deposit, allowing the insurer to recover the funds from the vehicle owner later.

What did the court decide?

Deposited compensation amounts to enable claimants to withdraw them; insurer to recover from vehicle owner.

M/S Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs D Raju — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:40175 MFA No. 9127 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 9128 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9127 OF 2017 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9128 OF 2017(MV-I)

¶6

IN MFA NO.9127/2017

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

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

¶9

M/S SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD E-8,RIICO, INDUSTRIAL AREA SITAPUR, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN. NOW REPRESENTED BY M/S SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, NO.5/4L, 3^rd FLOOR S.V. ARCADE, BILAKAHALLI, BANNERUGHATTA MAIN ROAD IIMB POST, BENGALURU - REPTD BY ITS ASSIT. MANAGER

¶10

(BY SRI.B C SHIVANNE GOWDA.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

AND:

¶13

D RAJU S/O DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NO.976, 7^TH CROSS, SUNNADA KERI, K.R. MOHALLA, MYSURU 570 001.

¶14

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:40175 MFA No. 9127 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 9128 of 2017

¶15

NANDAKUMAR.N S/O NAGARATHNAM R/AT ANANDAPURA VILLAGE, SATHANUR ROAD, CHANNAPATANA TALUK 562 108 RAMANAGARA DISTRICT 562 159.

¶16

H.D.PUTTANKAIAH S/O CHANNAKEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT HONAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, SATHANUR HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK - 562 126 RAMANGARA DISTRICT 562 159.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M.NAGESH.,ADVOCATE FFOR R-1; SRI.L.RAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3)

¶18

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED19.04.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.1270/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, PRINCIPAL COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MACT, MYSURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.5,27,416/WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶19

IN MFA NO. 9128 OF 2017

¶20

BETWEEN:

¶21

M/S SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD E-8,RIICO, INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN., NOW REPRESENTED BY M/S SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, NO.5/4L, 3^RD FLOOR, S.V. ARCADE, BILAKAHALLI,

¶22

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:40175 MFA No. 9127 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 9128 of 2017

¶23

BANNERUGHATTA MAIN ROAD, IIMB POST, BENGALURU, REPTD BY ITS ASSIT. MANAGER

¶24

…APPELLANT

¶25

(BY SRI.B C SHIVANNE GOWDA.,ADVOCATE)

¶26

AND:

¶27

1 . V. KRISHNAMURTHY S/O LATE VENKATESHAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO.3571, EAST CROSS 26, MANTAP STREET, ASHOKA ROAD LASHKER, MOHALLA, MYSURU - 570 001.

¶28

2 . NANDAKUMAR.N S/O NAGARATHNAM AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT ANANDAPURA VILLAGE, SATHANUR ROAD, CHANNAPATANA TALUK- 562 108 RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 159.

¶29

3 . H.D. PUTTANKAIAH S/O CHANNAKEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT HONAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, SATHANUR HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK- 562 126 RAMANGARA DISTRICT - 562 159. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M.NAGESH.,ADVOCATE FFOR R-1; SRI.L.RAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3)

¶30

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:40175 MFA No. 9127 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 9128 of 2017

¶31

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED19.04.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.1271/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, PRINCIPAL SMALL CAUSES & MACT, MYSURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.4,89,290/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION.

¶32

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

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

Aggrieved by the award passed in MVC Nos. 1270 & 1271 of 2013, dated 19.04.2017, by the Principal Small Causes & MACT, at Mysuru, the insurance company has preferred MFA Nos. 9127/2017 and 9128/2017.

¶35

The claim petition in MVC No.1270/2013 is filed by the claimant claiming an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- and the Tribunal had awarded an amount of Rs.5,27,416/-, MVC No.1271/2013 was filed claiming compensation of an amount of Rs.27,00,000/- and the court below had granted an amount of Rs.4,89,200/-.

¶36

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:40175 MFA No. 9127 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 9128 of 2017

¶37

It is the case of the insurance company before

¶38

the court below that the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid driving license. In that regard the court below had observed that during the course of crossexamination of RW-1 a Xerox copy of the driving license of RW-1 was submitted and when it was suggested to the witness that the driving license of respondent No.1 has been transferred to Ramanagar RTO office and the same was renewed but RW-1 has stated that the same is not properly visible. The court below had observed that the insurance company had not summoned / examined the concerned RTO Officer of Ramanagar RTO office to establish the fact that respondent No.1 did not possess a valid driving license to drive the offending vehicle. The court below considering the fact that there is a license and there is a valid insurance policy as on the date of the accident to the particular vehicle and as the insurance company has failed to prove that the driver was not having a valid driving license held that the insurance

¶39

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:40175 MFA No. 9127 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 9128 of 2017

¶40

company is liable to pay the compensation. Aggrieved thereby the insurance company is before this court.

¶41

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that

¶42

it is the duty of the owner of vehicle to place the driving license if any before the court below. It is submitted that the owner of the vehicle is contesting the matter before this Court and once the driving license is placed then the insurance company can accept its liability. It is submitted that on the earlier occasion when the matter came up, the

¶43

same was adjourned facilitating the owner of the vehicle to file the copy of the driving license if any and till date such license is not placed before this Court. He submits that when there is no driving license the issue of the liability of the insurance company does not arise. He further submits that apart from the driving license it is submitted that without a permit they were plying the vehicle and even on that count also they are not liable to pay the compensation. That the court below without considering all

¶44

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:40175 MFA No. 9127 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 9128 of 2017

¶45

these aspects had fastened the liability on the insurance company.

¶46

Learned counsel appearing for the owner of the vehicle submits that the court below had rightly held the insurance company liable. It is submitted that there is a valid insurance policy as on the date of the accident and the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. The only issue that calls for consideration in these two appeals is that -

¶47

"Whether there is any liability on the insurance company or not?"

¶48

In this case the court below had observed that the insurance company failed to adduced evidence with regard to the driving license and as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the insurance company, when this matter came before the Court on the last occasion, this Court adjourned the matter by giving an opportunity to the learned counsel for the owner to place the driving license if any and inspite of giving sufficient time, they did

¶49

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:40175 MFA No. 9127 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 9128 of 2017

¶50

not place the driving license and no evidence in that regard is placed on record so far. The fact that remains is that there is no valid driving license. The other contention is that apart from the driving license they were plying the vehicle without a permit. Even assuming that there is no valid driving license and plying of the vehicle without permit, still it amounts to violation of the terms and condition of the policy and as the claimant would be a third party to the policy, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation and thereafter can recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.

¶51

Accordingly, the appeals of the insurance

¶52

company is partly allowed by applying the principle of pay and recovery.

¶53

i) The insurance company shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment and thereafter recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. On such deposit, the

¶54

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:40175 MFA No. 9127 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 9128 of 2017

¶55

claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount.

¶56

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.

¶57

iii) The amount in deposit shall be transferred to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶58

vi) No costs.

¶59

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶60

SD/JUDGE

¶61

¶62

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

M/S Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. v. D Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. v. D Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Legal Manager Vs Sri Srinivas v

Smt Kantha Vs Mr Murugeshan D

Srinivasaiah a Vs the Managing Director

Mr Ravish Kumar Vs Mr. Prabhakar

Lokesh Vs H N Byrappa

Pakeerappa Vs Chandravathi