Allowed

The Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Remy Joseph

Karnataka HC23 Sept 2024MFA/4873/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Insurer's appeal against MACT award of Rs.65,500 compensation for injuries in a 2016 motorcycle accident. The insurer contended no policy covered the offending car and the owner failed to produce one. The High Court held liability was wrongly fastened on the insurer and redirected the owner to pay.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; Tribunal's judgment modified; owner (respondent No.2) directed to deposit the awarded compensation with interest within six weeks; deposited amount transferred to Tribunal for disburse

The Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Remy Joseph — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:39184 MFA No. 4873 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4873 OF 2018 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR NO.28, CENTENARY BUILDING M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001. NOW REPRESENTED BY MANAGER LEGAL

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. ASHOK N PATIL.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

REMY JOSEPH S/O. P.F. JOSEPH RESIDING AT: NO.4133 13TH 'A' MAIN ROAD 1ST CROSS, HAL 2ND STAGE INDIRANAGAR POST OFFICE BENGALURU - 560008.

¶13

M/S. CHANZON COZY CABS PVT. LTD. NO.277, 1ST FLOOR,4TH MAIN ROAD HAL 3RD STAGE, NEW THIPPASANDRA BENGALURU - 560075.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.GURUDEVA PRASAD K.T., ADVOCATE FOR R1: NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DATED: 23.02.2024)

¶15

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:20.04.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.6982/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXIII ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU(SCCH-19), AWARDING

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:39184 MFA No. 4873 of 2018

¶18

COMPENSATION OF RS.65,500/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION.

¶19

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶21

This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles

¶22

Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been

¶23

filed by the Insurance Company challenging by the judgment dated 20.04.2018 passed by MACT, Bengaluru in MVC No.6982/2016.

¶24

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 09.08.2016 when the claimant was proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-05HW-7543 on 10^th Main Indiranagar, Bangalore, at that time, car bearing registration No.KA-03-AC-0455 being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the vehicle of the claimant. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:39184 MFA No. 4873 of 2018

¶26

The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act, seeking compensation. It was pleaded that he spent significant amount towards medical expenses, conveyance charges and other related costs. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶27

Upon service of notice, the respondent No.1 appeared through counsel and filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. The respondent No.2 despite service of notice, did not appear before the Tribunal and was placed ex-parte.

¶28

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter, recorded the evidence. The Tribunal, by impugned judgment and award has partly allowed the claim petition and held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.65,500/along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:39184 MFA No. 4873 of 2018

¶30

along with interest. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.

¶31

The learned counsel for the Insurance Company has contended that the offending vehicle is not covered with valid insurance policy. The Insurance Company has not issued any policy in respect of the offending vehicle. Inspite of issuing notice to the owner of the offending vehicle, he has not appeared before the Tribunal and produced the policy. The Tribunal without considering whether policy existed in respect of the offending vehicle, has erred in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company. Hence, he sought to allow the appeal.

¶32

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimant has contended that claimant is a third party and his entitlement to compensation is unaffected by the existence or validity of the insurance policy of the offending vehicle. The onus of ensuring valid coverage rests with the owner. The Tribunal after considering

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:39184 MFA No. 4873 of 2018

¶34

materials available on record has rightly fastened the liability on the Insurance Company. Hence, he sought to dismiss the appeal.

¶35

The owner of the offending vehicle is served and unrepresented.

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No.1 and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

¶37

It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on 09.08.2016 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶38

The appellant-Insurance Company had taken a specific contention before the Tribunal that the offending vehicle is not insured with the appellant-Insurance Company and the Insurance Company has not issued any policy in respect of the offending vehicle.

¶39

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:39184 MFA No. 4873 of 2018

¶40

Even though notice has been issued to the owner of

¶41

the offending vehicle, he has not appeared before the Tribunal and produced the policy in respect of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal without examining whether the policy existed in respect of the offending vehicle, has erred in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company. Hence, the judgment and award of the Tribunal in respect of fastening liability on the Insurance Company is concerned, the same is liable to be set aside.

¶42

Accordingly, the following order is passed:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

a) The appeal is allowed .

¶45

b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶46

c) The respondent No.2, herein (owner of the offending vehicle) is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest as awarded by the Tribunal, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:39184 MFA No. 4873 of 2018

¶49

d) The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transferred to

¶50

the Tribunal for disbursement.

¶51

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶52

¶53

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

The Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Remy Joseph

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Remy Joseph

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. Rajesha Vs Sri. Sharath H.D.

Sri Chikkarudraiah R Vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Mani. a Vs M/S. Hariharan Logistics Parthiban

S. Shivakumara Swamy Vs G. N. Shivakumar

Shriram Gic Ltd. Vs Sri. Shameemthaz

Sri Srinivas K T Vs Sri Manjunath R K