Dismissed

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Siddaraju

Karnataka HC4 Jul 2023MFA/9349/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of an appeal by Reliance General Insurance Company Limited challenging a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, holding that the claimant, being the owner of goods transported in a hired vehicle, was covered under the Act, thus dismissing the insurer's appeal.

What did the court decide?

Compensation of Rs. 1,53,120/- awarded to the claimant by the Tribunal is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed.

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Siddaraju — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:22927 MFA No. 9349 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9349 OF 2012 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.28, 5TH FLOOR, EAST WING, CENTENARY BUILDING, M G ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001, BY ITS ZONAL LEGAL MANAGER.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. H S LINGARAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SIDDARAJU,

¶13

Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

NOW AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, S/O NAGARAJU, R/A C/O MARICHIKKAIAH, THYAMAGONDALU, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT.

¶15

ASIF HUSSAIN, MAJOR, S/O ABID HUSSAIN, R/A G T STREET, THYAMAGONDALU, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶16

RAMAIAH T L, MAJOR,S/O CHANNAPPA,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:22927 MFA No. 9349 of 2012

¶19

R/A NEERUBHAVI THOTA, THYAMAGONDALU VILLAGE AND HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISRICT - 562 123.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. G K SREEVIDYA, ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.06.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.8210/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE XII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND MEMBER MACT, BANGALORE. AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS. 1,53,120/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. (EXCEPT RS.10,000/- AWARDED UNDER THE HEAD OF FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES) FROM THE DATE OF THE CLAIM PEITION TILL REALISATION.

¶23

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

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

The appeal is filed by the appellant-insurance

¶26

company seeking to set aside the judgment and award dated 16.06.2012 passed in MVC No.8210/2010 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore.

¶27

Brief facts of the case are that:

¶28

On 12.09.2010 at about 7.45 a.m., one Mr.

¶29

Muniyappa, S/o. Chikkagangaiah being the driver of a luggage TATA ACE bearing No.KA-52-3827 drove the same

¶30

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:22927 MFA No. 9349 of 2012

¶31

on Sondekoppa-Nelamangala road towards Sondekoppa

¶32

with high speed, and in rash and negligent manner and near Laggenahalli due to over speed, he lost his control over vehicle and as a result, the said vehicle turned turtle on the right side of the road. As a result of said impact, the petitioner who was traveling in the said luggage TATA ACE vehicle as a owner of the goods, has sustained grievous injuries. Therefore, the petitioner filed claim petition seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶33

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

¶34

appellant and the learned counsel for the respondentInsurance Company and perused the records.

¶35

Learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that the claimant has traveled as passenger in Tata Ace goods vehicle. As such, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. Hence, he prays to allow the appeal by fixing the liability on the owner of Tata Ace goods vehicle.

¶36

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:22927 MFA No. 9349 of 2012

¶37

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent justified the judgment and award passed by

¶38

the Tribunal and prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶39

In the present case, it is submitted that the claimant has traveled in the Tata Ace goods vehicle which is loaded with garlic and onion. The question to be determined on the basis of appreciating the evidence on record is that whether the claimant is a retail small trader of garlic and onion?

¶40

Ex.P9 is the rent receipt for having taken the said goods vehicle on hire basis by the claimant on paying rent.

¶41

Ex.P10 is the certificate issued by M/s. Sriram Traders, who is wholesale traders of garlic and onion. Therefore, these two documentary evidence prove that the claimant has purchased garlic and onion from the said wholesale trader and has taken the Tata Ace goods vehicle on hire basis for transportation. The claimant has carried

¶42

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:22927 MFA No. 9349 of 2012

¶43

garlic and onion in the said vehicle and traveled along with the goods. Hence, it is proved that the claimant being the owner of the goods has traveled in the Tata Ace goods vehicle. Therefore, it covers the risk under Section 147 of Motor Vehicles Act. When it is proved that the claimant has traveled in the Tata Ace goods vehicle being the owner of goods, there is no merit in the contention taken by the insurance company that the claimant has traveled as a passenger. Hence, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is hereby confirmed and the appeal lacks merits. As such, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶44

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

i. The appeal is dismissed .

¶47

ii. The judgment and award dated 16.06.2012 passed in MVC No.8210/2010 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore is hereby confirmed.

¶48

iii. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal.

¶49

NC: 2023:KHC:22927 MFA No. 9349 of 2012

iv. Costs made easy.

Sd/JUDGE

SSD

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Siddaraju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Siddaraju

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

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs Sri P Nanjireddy

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri Ramachandra Gowda

Savitha Vs B Parashuram Bhat

The Divisional Manager Vs Venkateshan Karanan

Padmavathi Vs a Yogananda Reddy

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Sri Chowdappa