Dismissed

Kokilavani v. the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Karnataka HC1 Mar 2024MFA/1173/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the first appeal prefered by the deceased motorcyclist's claimants against the Tribunal's award, holding that no compensation is payable for death caused by the deceased's own negligence. The Court directed the claimants to seek personal accident coverage from the respondent insurance company separately.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; approval of Tribunal's judgment and award; direction to claim personal accident cover from insurer.

Kokilavani Vs the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:8694 MFA No. 1173 of 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1173 OF 2022 (MV-D)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

KOKILAVANI, W/O N. KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE.

¶9

KRISHNAMURTHY, S/O LATE NATESHA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.

¶10

KARTHIK K., S/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,

¶11

Digitally signed by B LAVANYA

¶12

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

ALL ARE R/AT NO.129, VISHWESHWARANAGARA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 434.

¶14

(BY SRI VIJAY KUMAR T., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶15

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., BY ITS MANAGER, NO.73, 1^ST FLOOR, MADHAVESHA COMPLEX, MALAI MAHADESHWARA ROAD, NAZARABAD, MYSURU - 570 010.

¶16

…APPELLANTS

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI Y.K. SHESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:8694 MFA No. 1173 of 2022

¶21

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.09.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.155/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PANDAVAPURA.

¶22

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

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

This appeal is preferred by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 28.09.2020 passed by the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Pandavpura, (for short 'the Tribunal') in MVC.No.155/2018. This appeal is founded on the premise of inadequacy of compensation. Hence, the appellants seek enhancement of compensation.

¶25

Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.

¶26

Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶27

That on 19.11.2017 at about 6.00 p.m. one Yashwanth Kumar K. was coming from Bengaluru towards Mysuru in his Motor bike bearing Chassis/Engine No.ME4JC734HHT086641/ JC73ET1155488 and when he

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:8694 MFA No. 1173 of 2022

¶30

came near the Law College and Co-operative Society middle road at Basavanapura circle, Ramanagara Taluk, he lost control of his bike and took the bike over the road divider and fell down and dashed against the Car bearing reg.No.KA-51/MH-593. Due to the occurrence of the accident, he sustained grievous injuries to his head, hands and legs and succumbed in the hospital. His legal representatives who are the dependents filed a claim petition seeking compensation.

¶31

3.1. On service of notice, the respondent filed statement of objection denying the claim of the claimants including the negligence and liability as against the Insurance Company. The deceased himself was the rider and owner of the vehicle, therefore, the claimants cannot claim compensation for the act of rash and negligence of the deceased. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶32

3.2. On the basis of pleadings, the tribunal framed

¶33

relevant issues for consideration.

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:8694 MFA No. 1173 of 2022

¶35

On the basis of material placed on record both oral and documentary and relying upon the decision of this court in the case of DR.S.JAYARAM SHETTY VS. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, the tribunal after appreciating the entire material on record dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the claimants would not be entitled for compensation for the death of deceased Yashwanth Kumar for the reason that the FIR and charge sheet are laid against deceased himself and the insurance policy of the vehicle is issued by the insurance company in

¶36

the name of deceased. In the circumstances, the deceased would not be termed as a party as he himself is a party to the contract of insurance in the insurance company. Therefore, the tribunal after analysing the entire evidence and the legal aspects, dismissed the claim petition.

¶37

In view of the above, I do not find any error in the judgment rendered by the tribunal warranting interference at the hands of this Court. However, learned counsel for

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:8694 MFA No. 1173 of 2022

¶40

the appellants produced a copy of the insurance policy issued by the respondent, which shows that there is a personal accident coverage to an extent of Rs.1 Lakh as per the policy. It is unfortunate that the death has occurred and the claimants have lost the bread earning member of the family. Be that as it may, the claimants will have to approach the respondent - insurance company for claiming the personal accident coverage, which is stipulated in the insurance policy. The same shall be considered sympathetically by the insurance company in accordance with law.

¶41

Under the circumstances, the appeal preferred by the claimants seeking compensation is dismissed upholding the judgment of the tribunal.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

CPN/TIN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52 CT: BHK

Kokilavani v. the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kokilavani v. the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

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

Madhu a B Vs Ganghu a B

Y v Gundu Rao Vs a v Srinivasamurthy

Sri Chandrashekar Vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.

C.V Manjunatha Vs Kesavan

Sri Neelakantaiah Vs Mr Tajammul Pasha

Smt Raziya Sultana Vs United India Insurance Company Ltd.