Dismissed

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., v. K a Narasimhappa

Karnataka HC23 Aug 2024MFA/434/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the insurer's appeal challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's award. The Court held that the insurer failed to lead evidence regarding the alleged violation of policy conditions (lack of valid driving licence) and had previously accepted liability in a connected appeal filed by the claimants. The appeal on the ground of liability was rejected.

What the court decided

AI extract

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Vs K a… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:33935 MFA No. 434 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 434 OF 2014 (MV-I)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, LAKSHMI TOWERS NO. 200/3, 1^ST FLOOR, R.V.ROAD ADJACENT TO BANGALORE HOSPITAL BANGALORE-560 004 REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER R.O. ATNO. 44/45, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, RESIDENCY ROAD BANGALORE-560 025

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. SRISHAILA S., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

K A NARASIMHAPPA S/O BHAVANNA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/O CHELUR VILLAGE AND POST BAGEPALLI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT – 577 101

¶15

H S REKHA D/O H RAMACHANDRA MAJOR, R/AT OLD HOUSE NO. 986 NEW NO.1189, I-E MAIN VISHWABHARATHI HOUSING COLONY, GIRINAGAR BANGALORE-560 085

¶16

VENKATARAMANA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS S/O G VENUGOPALA

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:33935 MFA No. 434 of 2014

¶19

COOK IN GOVT. BOYS SCHOOL VHELUR, BAGEPALLI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT- 577 101

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT.SUGUNA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2-SERVED; V/O/DATED 13.03.2023, NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.09.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.8590/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE 14^TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1,15,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL PAYMENT.

¶23

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON I.A. , THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

Though matter is listed for ‘hearing on I.A.’, with consent of learned counsel on both sides, matter is taken up for disposal.

¶26

Challenging judgment and award dated 11.09.2013 in MVC no.8590/2010 passed by XIV Additional Judge, MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, this appeal is filed.

¶27

Sri S.Srishaila, learned counsel for appellant submitted, appeal is by Insurer, challenging award on ground

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:33935 MFA No. 434 of 2014

¶30

of ‘liability’. It was submitted, occurrence of accident due to

¶31

rash and negligent driving of insured vehicle, claimant sustaining injuries, issuance of insurance policy and its validity as on day of accident are not in dispute. Tribunal passed impugned award assessing compensation. It was submitted, before Tribunal, appellant-insurer had opposed claim petition on ground of violation of policy condition, specifically on ground that rider of insured motorcycle did not had a valid and effective Driving Licence. Despite same, Tribunal has fastened liability on Insurer. It was submitted, though claimants had led evidence, they did not established that rider of insured vehicle had licence. It was submitted, even respondent no.1 had chosen to remain ex-parte. On said ground and as burden to establish satisfaction of terms and conditions of policy was not discharged, Tribunal had erred in passing impugned award. On said ground, he sought for allowing this appeal.

¶32

On other hand, Smt.Suguna Reddy, learned counsel for respondent no.1 sought to oppose appeal. At outset, it was submitted, present appeal would not be tenable as claimants had also preferred appeal in MFA no.3926/2014, which was disposed of on 16.09.2021 by enhancing compensation without

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:33935 MFA No. 434 of 2014

¶35

disturbing finding regarding liability of insurer. It was submitted, said enhancement was also against Insurer. In view of same, she sought for dismissal of appeal.

¶36

Heard learned counsel for both parties and perused judgment and award.

¶37

From above, it is seen that appellant is challenging award on ‘liability’. Therefore, only point would arise for consideration:

¶38

“Whether tribunal was justified in holding insurer liable to pay compensation?”

¶39

Perusal of impugned award reflects that Tribunal has adverted to contention of insurer regarding violation of policy condition. However, Tribunal has taken note of fact that rider of insured vehicle was prosecuted for offences under Sections 279 & 338 of IPC read with Section 187 of MV Act and not for riding motorcycle without Driving Licence. It is seen that Insurer did not lead any evidence. In absence of specific evidence, general objection about violation of policy condition would not discharge liability of Insurer.

¶40

Moreover, insurer appeared in claimant’s appeal and did not contest on liability or get it connected with its

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:33935 MFA No. 434 of 2014

¶43

appeal. Hence, having accepted liability in claimant’s appeal, insurer cannot be permitted to agitate it in this appeal. On said

¶44

ground also, present challenge would not be tenable. Therefore, point for consideration has to be answered in negative. Consequently, following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

(i) Appeal is dismissed ;

¶47

(ii) Amount in deposit to be transmitted to Tribunal; and

¶48

(iii) Balance amount, if any, shall be deposited before Tribunal within a period of six weeks from date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

¶49

In view of disposal of appeal, I.A.no.2/2014 is

¶50

disposed of as unnecessary.

¶51

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶52

¶53

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., v. K a Narasimhappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., v. K a Narasimhappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Raju Vs United India Insurance Co., Ltd.

Sri. P v Balaji Ganes Vs Sri. a G Munivenkata Gowda

Sri Rudresh Vs Sri Annappa B

Sri. Venkataramanappa Vs Sri. Kiran. S

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Surekha

Mr Suryakantha Poojary Vs Mr Narayana Poojary