Allowed

Kum. Lakshmi v. Sri. Raju. C. a.

Karnataka HC15 Jun 2023RP/190/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review petition filed to correct a prior High Court judgment that erroneously held an insurer liable for only 50% of compensation. The Court allowed the review, modifying the liability to 100% based on earlier Tribunal findings of sole responsibility by the offending vehicle's driver, and ordered deposit of the full amount.

What did the court decide?

Judgment of 11.12.2020 in MFA No.2854/2013 modified to hold insurer liable for full compensation of Rs.3,75,000/- with 6% p.a. interest. Amount to be deposited within one month.

Kum. Lakshmi Vs Sri. Raju. C. a. — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:20835 RP No. 190 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ REVIEW PETITION NO. 190 OF 2022

¶7

¶8

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.2854/2013 (MV)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

KUM. LAKSHMI D/O LATE PARASHURAM AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT NO. 14, MALAGALA BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560 091.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. NAIK RAMACHANDRA RAMA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SRI. RAJU. C.A. S/O LATE ARI AYANNA, R/AT NO.14, 15^TH CROSS, PIPELINE, CHOLURAPALYA, BENGALURU-560023.

¶16

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., CDU VI RESIDENCY ROAD CROSS NO. 45/7, GROUND FLOOR, VINAYAK BENGALURU-560001 REP. BY ITS DIV. MANAGER

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI RAJU C.A. - RESPONDENT NO.1 IS SERVED SRI B.C. SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶19

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 READ WITH ORDER XLVII RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE REVIEW PETITION AND

¶20

¶21

NC: 2023:KHC:20835 RP No. 190 of 2022

¶22

REVIEW THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 11.12.2020 PASSED IN MFA No.2854/2013 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶23

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This review petition is filed to review the judgment dated 11.12.2020 passed by this Court in M.F.A. No.2854/2013.

¶26

This Court while considering MFA No.2854/2013, which was filed by the review petitioner for enhancement of compensation, enhanced the compensation awarded by the Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, (henceforth referred to as 'the Tribunal') in MVC No.8926/2010 from Rs.2,10,000/- to Rs.3,75,000/-. However, in so far as the liability to pay the compensation is concerned, it was represented that this Court had already taken a view in MFA No.4318/2012 that the driver of Maruti omni Van bearing registration No.MGJ-21 (henceforth referred to as 'Maruti Van') and the driver of Lorry bearing registration No.KA-02/AB-7299 (henceforth referred to as 'the offending vehicle') were equally negligent in causing the accident and therefore, a different view cannot be taken in the appeal in MFA No.2854/2013. Consequently, respondent No.2

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:20835 RP No. 190 of 2022

¶28

/ insurer of the offending vehicle was held liable to pay 50% of the compensation determined by this Court.

¶29

The review petitioner has now brought to the notice of this Court that the claim petition in MVC No.6234/2010 arose out of the same accident and VII Additional Judge and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-3, Bengaluru, vide judgment and award dated 09.03.2012 had held that the insurer of the offending vehicle / Lorry bearing registration No.KA-02/AB7299 is liable to pay the entire compensation awarded to the claimants therein and no contributory negligence was attributed to the driver of Maruti Van. This judgment in MVC No.6234/2010 was upheld by a coordinate Bench of this Court in MFA No.4318/2012 vide judgment dated 15.06.2012.

¶30

After perusal of the judgment and award in MVC No.6234/2010 and the judgment in MFA No.4318/2012, it is evident that the learned counsel for the insurer/respondent No.2 in MFA No.2854/2013 erroneously represented that in MVC No.6234/2010, the Tribunal had held that the driver of Maruti Van had contributed 50% negligence to causation of the accident. Hence following his submission, this Court held that the insurer is liable only to the extent of 50% of the

¶31

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:20835 RP No. 190 of 2022

¶32

compensation determined by this Court. Now, it is brought to the notice of this Court that in MVC No.6234/2010, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held that there was no contributory

¶33

negligence on the part of the driver of the Maruthi Van in causing the accident and the driver of the offending vehicle was solely responsible for the accident. Therefore the judgment dated 11.12.2020 passed by this Court in MFA No.2854/2013 holding that the driver of Maruti Van was negligent and had contributed 50% negligence to causation of the accident deserves to be recalled.

¶34

In that view of the matter, this review petition is allowed and the Judgment dated 11.12.2020 passed by this Court in MFA No.2854/2013 in so far as it relates to holding that the respondent No.2 / insurer of the offending vehicle is liable only to the extent of 50% of the compensation determined by this Court is modified and it is held that the insurer of the offending vehicle is liable to pay the compensation of Rs.3,75,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization. The respondent No.2 / insurer of the offending vehicle shall deposit compensation of Rs.3,75,000/- along with interest as stated above before the

¶35

NC: 2023:KHC:20835 RP No. 190 of 2022

¶36

¶37

Tribunal within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.

¶38

Upon deposit, 50% of the compensation and interest thereon shall be kept in a fixed deposit in the name of the claimant / petitioner herein in any nationalized Bank for a period of three years.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1

¶41

sma

Kum. Lakshmi v. Sri. Raju. C. a.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kum. Lakshmi v. Sri. Raju. C. a.

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

Sri. K. S. Rohit @ Vante Vs Additional Commissioner of Police (East)

Sri S Manjunath Vs Smt Nethravathi

N Narasimha Murthy Vs State of Karnataka

Sri G Guruprasad Vs the State by

Sri. Krishnamurthy Vs Smt. P. Jayashree Bhat

M/S Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. Vs M/S Lisa Apparels Pvt. Ltd.