Partly allowed

Smt Nagamma v. Shri R Srinivas

Karnataka HC17 Sept 2024MFA/393/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimant's appeal against a Tribunal award where the insurer was exonerated because the offending vehicle had no valid permit. The court held the third-party claimant should not suffer and directed the insurer to pay compensation with liberty to recover it from the vehicle owner.

What did the court decide?

Insurer directed to deposit awarded compensation with interest within eight weeks, with liberty to recover from owner; appellant permitted to withdraw; no interest for 1342 days' delay.

Smt Nagamma Vs Shri R Srinivas — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:38070 MFA No. 393 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 393 OF 2021 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. NAGAMMA W/O. SHIVAMALLEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT SOMANAPURA VILLAGE, THERAKANAMBI HOBLI, GUNDLUPETE TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT 571 123

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. SANATH KUMARA K.M., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SHRI. R. SRINIVAS, S/O. LATE G. RANGASWAMY, AGE MAJOR, R/AT BEHIND V.H.P. SCHOOL, COURT ROAD, CHAMARAJ NAGAR TOWN 571 313

¶13

THE BRANCH MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., GIRISH COMPLEX, 1^ST FLOOR, AGRAHARA STREET, CHAMARAJANAGAR 571 313

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SMT. S. SUMATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. H.C. VRUSHABHENDRAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:38070 MFA No. 393 of 2021

¶17

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.04.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO. 46/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER OF MACT, CHAMARAJANAGARA, SITTING AT KOLLEGALA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶18

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶21

Heard Sri.Sanath Kumara K.M, learned counsel for

¶22

the appellant as well as Sri.H.C.Vrushabhandraiah learned counsel for respondent No.2. Though Smt.S.Sumathi is on record for respondent No.1, learned counsel failed to make her appearance.

¶23

Challenge in this appeal is the order that is rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollegala in M.V.C. No.46/2010 dated 23.04.2016.

¶24

This is a claimants appeal. Though the claimant

¶25

filed the appeal aggrieved by the quantum that is awarded

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:38070 MFA No. 393 of 2021

¶27

as compensation and exoneration of respondent No.2Insuranc Company from liability, on this day, Sri,Sanath Kumara K.M, learned counsel for the appellant restricted his submission sofaras liability in respect of respondent No.2 to pay compensation is concerned.

¶28

In this regard learned counsel submits that by all the evidence produced, respondent No.2 established that the offending vehicle was not having valid permit. However, as the appellant is a third party, the appellant should not suffer. Therefore, the tribunal ought to have fastened liability against respondent No.2 also, but it did not do so. Learned counsel ultimately seeks to fix liability against respondent No.2.

¶29

On the otherhand, the submission that is made by Sri.H.C.Vrushabhandraiah, learned counsel for respondent No.2 is that the owner of the vehicle i.e., respondent No.1 had run the vehicle on road without valid permit and thereby violated the terms and conditions of the policy. The said plea was established before the tribunal. Learned

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:38070 MFA No. 393 of 2021

¶31

counsel contends that however in the light of the rulings of the Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard, this Court make order the respondent No.2 to pay compensation with a liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.

¶32

The said submission appears to be justifiable and

¶33

also in accordance with law. Therefore, this Court considers desirable to dispose of the appeal accordingly.

¶34

ORDER

¶35

i. The appeal is allowed in part .

¶36

ii. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the sum awarded as compensation through the impugned order by the tribunal along with interest within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶37

iii. On such deposit, respondent No.2 is given liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle i.e., respondent No.1 by initiating appropriate proceedings.

¶38

iv. On deposit, appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:38070 MFA No. 393 of 2021

¶41

v. However, as per orders in IA No.1/2020 dated 05.07.2022, the appellant is not entitled for any interest for the period of delay i.e., 1342 days.

¶42

Sd/(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE

¶43

VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33

Smt Nagamma v. Shri R Srinivas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Nagamma v. Shri R Srinivas

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.Sriram Vs the Managing Director

Suhas N Vs Rakesh H R

Sri. M. Narayanappa Vs M. Manjunath

Sannakariyappa Vs Rajanna

Jithendra Vs Keshavamurthy. K. R.

Shanthabai @ Sahanthavva Goundi Vs M P Karthikeyan