Partly allowed

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt Radha

Karnataka HC12 Mar 2024MFA/4027/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Insurer appealed a Tribunal award under a Section 163(A) claim for death in a motorcycle accident. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Ramkhiladi, the High Court modified the Tribunal judgment, fixing compensation at Rs.1,00,000 with 6% interest payable by the Insurance Company.

What did the court decide?

Tribunal judgment modified; compensation fixed at Rs.1,00,000 with 6% p.a. interest from date of petition; insurer to deposit; amount in deposit transmitted to Tribunal for refund; claimants to withdr

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Radha — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:10119 MFA No. 4027 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4027 OF 2013 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO., LTD MANDYA BRANCH, THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, #44/45, RESIDENCY ROD, BANGALORE-560025, REP. BY ITS DPUTY MANAGER MR.ARASU.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI.C.R.VISHNU VINAYAK., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.B.C.SEETHARAMA RAO., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SMT. RADHA W/O LATE RAVI, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS.

¶12

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

KUM. VARSHINI AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS, D/O LATE RAVI,

¶14

CHI. HARSHA AGED ABOUT 2 YEARS, S/O LATE RAVI.

¶15

RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 ARE MINORS, REP. BY THEIR MOTHER & NATURAL GUARDIAN, RESPONDENT NO.1-SMT.RADHA.

¶16

SMT. DUNDAMMA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, W/O SIDDARAMEGOWDA.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:10119 MFA No. 4027 of 2013

¶19

SRI. SIDDARAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O DODDYEDEGOWDA.

¶20

R1 TO 5 ARE R/O ANNURU VILLAGE, C.A.KERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428.

¶21

SRI. A.G.DEVARAJU MAJOR, S/O CHIKKA PUTTEGOWDA, R/O: ANNURU VILLAGE, K.M.DODDI POST, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428. (OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE NO.KA.11/K-8470).

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI.M.Y.SREENIVASAN ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5; R2 AND R3 ARE MINORS REP. BY R1; R6 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶24

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:24.01.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.198/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT, MADDUR.

¶25

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

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

Sri.C.R.Vishnu Vinayak., learned counsel on behalf of Sri.B.C.Seetharama Rao., for the appellant has appeared in person.

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:10119 MFA No. 4027 of 2013

¶29

Notice to the respondents was ordered on 25.06.2013. A perusal of office note depicts that the sixth respondent is served and unrepresented. The sixth respondent has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as party in person.

¶30

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status and ranking before the Tribunal.

¶31

The claimants filed claim petition under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation and urged several contentions. In response to the notice, the respondents appeared through their counsel. The first respondent did not file written statement. The second respondent Insurance Company filed its written statement. It admitted that the vehicle in question was covered under the policy, however the liability was subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. Among other grounds it prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶32

Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed issues, parties led evidence and marked the documents. The Tribunal vide Judgment dated:24.01.2013 allowed the petition

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:10119 MFA No. 4027 of 2013

¶34

in part. It is this Judgment that is called into question in this appeal on several grounds as set-out in the memorandum of appeal.

¶35

Learned counsel for the appellant has urged several contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant and perused the appeal papers and the records with utmost care.

¶36

Learned counsel for the appellant drew the attention of the Court to the decision in RAMKHILADI AND

¶37

ANOTHER Vs. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY

¶38

AND ANOTHER IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.9393/2019.

¶39

In view of decision referred to supra, the Judgment dated:24.01.2013 passed by the Tribunal is modified holding that the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

¶40

The Insurance Company is liable to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till realization.

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:10119 MFA No. 4027 of 2013

¶43

Office is directed to transmit the amount in deposit if any to the Tribunal forthwith for refund of the same to the Insurance Company.

¶44

The claimants are entitled to withdraw the entire

¶45

amount.

¶46

Resultantly, the Miscellaneous First Appeal is

¶47

allowed in part .

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

TKN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt Radha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt Radha

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

Smt Tara Bhojegowda W/O Lt Sri B D Bhojegowda Vs Smt Shreelatha Vaidyanathan

Rajappa Vs Purushotham M M

Boralingegowda Vs Raju

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs Smt Ningamma

B Hanumantharaju S/O Bhangaiah Vs Suresh Babu S/O Doddathimmaiah

Suresh Babu Vs B Hanumantharaju