Allowed

Smt Jayamma L v. Iffco-Tokio General Insurance

Karnataka HC15 Mar 2024MFA/1232/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimant challenged the tribunal's fixing of liability solely on the bus owner because the vehicle had no valid permit. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Amrit Paul Singh, the High Court held the insurer liable to pay compensation with right to recover it from the owner.

What did the court decide?

Insurance company directed to pay Rs.50,000 with 6% interest p.a. from date of petition, recoverable from owner; deposit within eight weeks; withdrawal without security.

Smt Jayamma L Vs Iffco-Tokio General Insurance — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:10867 MFA No. 1232 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1232 OF 2019

¶6

(MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT JAYAMMA L W/O LATE NINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO 32, KSCB QUARTERS, LAGGERE, LAKSHMIDEVINAGAR, BANGALORE - 96

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. SHRIPAD V SHASTRI .,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO 41, CRISTU COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR, LAVELLE ROAD, BANGALORE - 01

¶14

POLICY ISSUED BY ITS OFFICE AT NO 141, SRI SHANTHI TOWERS, 4TH FLOOR, 3RD MAIN, EAST NGEF LAYOUT, KASTURI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 43

¶15

MR KRISHNASWAMY S/O VENKATARAMANNA SHETTY MAJOR, R/AT MARUTHI ENTERPRISES HEBBUR,TUMKUR TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT- 572120

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:10867 MFA No. 1232 of 2019

¶18

(BY SRI.B.PRADEEP.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED09.08.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.8359/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER MACT, XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU CITY, SCCH-14, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

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

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Aggrieved by the award dated 09.08.2018, passed in

¶23

MVC No.8359/2016, by the MACT, XVI Additional Judge, Court Of Small Causes, Bengaluru City, the claimant is before this Court questioning the liability fixed on the owner of the vehicle.

¶24

The case of the claimant is that she is aged 55 years working as Poojari and earning an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month. On 26.07.2014 at about 9.00 a.m, when the claimant was waiting on the extreme left side of the road from southern to northern side on Tumkur-road Marapanapalya near BSNL office cautiously observing all

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:10867 MFA No. 1232 of 2019

¶26

traffic norms at that time a bus which was coming from same direction at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the claimant. As a result, the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident she was shifted to KCG hospital wherein she was treated as inpatient and spent

¶27

huge amounts for treatment. When it comes to the liability, the court below had fixed the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle and held that the accident had taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus. When it comes to the liability, the court below had observed that a perusal of Exhibits-R2 to R7 reveals that as on the date of the accident there is no valid permit for the offending bus and it is also observed that it is the duty of respondent No.2 i.e., owner of the bus, to contest the matter and produce the permit, if really he has permit as on the date of the accident to the offending bus. Hence, it is held that the owner alone is liable to pay the compensation.

¶28

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:10867 MFA No. 1232 of 2019

¶29

Learned counsel appearing of the claimant

¶30

submits that the claimant is a third party and just because the offending vehicle is not having a permit that itself cannot be ground to exonerate the insurance company. He had relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of the AMRIT PAUL SINGH VS TATA AIG

¶31

GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD¹ . In the light of the same, still the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.

¶32

Learned counsel appearing for the insurance

¶33

company do not dispute the fact that the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of the AMRIT PAUL SINGH'S case referred to supra applies to the facts of the

¶34

present case.

¶35

1 2018 (7) SCC 558, (2019)

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:10867 MFA No. 1232 of 2019

¶37

5. Accordingly, the appeal of the claimant is

¶38

allowed and the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation of an amount of Rs.50,000/- along with interest at 6% per annum and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.

¶39

i) The compensation shall carry interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶40

ii) The insurance company shall deposit the compensation amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any security.

¶41

iii) 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.

¶42

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:10867 MFA No. 1232 of 2019

¶43

iv) No costs.

¶44

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

¶45

closed.

¶46

SD/JUDGE

¶47

JJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48

Smt Jayamma L v. Iffco-Tokio General Insurance

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Jayamma L v. Iffco-Tokio General Insurance

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

Sri. N. Harish Vs Smt. L. Radha

M K Shanmukhappa Vs Nagaraja

M/S Shriram Gic Ltd. Vs Smt Yashoda Bai

The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Vedavathi

Venkob Rao Vs Sri. Girish Swamy

Mrs. Akshatha G. Nayak Vs Mr. Shamanth. S. Suvarna