Allowed

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri Lino Tharakan

Karnataka HC19 Mar 2024MFA/650/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Insurer appealed a motor accident award where the claimant was hit by a mobile crane. The court held the CPM policy covered only insured premises, not public-road third-party risk, and exonerated the insurer, directing the vehicle owner to satisfy the award.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; Tribunal judgment set aside as to insurer's liability; insurer exonerated and deposit refundable.

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri Lino Tharakan — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:11286 MFA No. 650 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 650 OF 2014 (MV-I)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., MOTOR CLAIMS HUB, NO.72, UNITY BUILDINGS ANNEXE, P. KALINGA RAO ROAD, BANGALORE-560 027. BY DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY.

¶7

…APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI. C.R.RAVISHANKAR., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K. SURYANARAYANA RAO., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SRI. LINO THARAKAN S/O THOMAS THARAKAN, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT ERIZHETHA HOUSE, CHENNAIPARA P.O EEPEECHI, THRISSUR, KERALA AND ALSO R/AT 1^ST CROSS, GARDEN CITY COLLEGE, OLD MADRAS ROAD, BENGALURU.

¶12

TARA CHAND & SONS., NO.342, INDUSTRIAL AREA, PHASE-1, CHANDIGARH AND ALSO RAMAMURTHYNAGAR CHANNSANDRA BENGALURU.

¶13

…RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI. VASANTHAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1, R2 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED.)

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:11286 MFA No. 650 of 2014

¶17

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:08.11.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.3800/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII A.C.M. & XXIV A.S.C.J, MACT, BANGALORE.

¶18

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

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Sri.C.R.Ravishankar., learned counsel on behalf of Sri.K.Suryanarayana Rao., for the appellant has appeared in person.

¶21

Notice to the second respondent was ordered on 07.07.2014. A perusal of daily order sheet depicts that notice to the second respondent is served and unrepresented. He has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as party in person.

¶22

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

¶23

It is the case of the claimant that on the 9^th day of May 2012 at about 7:00 a.m., he was walking on outer ring

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:11286 MFA No. 650 of 2014

¶25

road, near Karthikanagara Bus Stop. At that time, a Mobile Crane bearing Reg.No.KA-03-MN-9280 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit him. As a result of which, he fell and sustained grievous injuries. Contending that he is entitled for compensation, the claimant filed claim petition.

¶26

In response to the notice, the respondents appeared through their counsel. The first respondent filed written statement denying the petition averments. It contended that the Contractor's Plant and Machinery Insurance Policy was issued to the second respondent and the risk covered was only restricted to the location of operation at the insured premises. They did not issue a Motor Insurance Policy to the second respondent. Among other grounds, it prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶27

Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed issues, parties led evidence and marked the documents. The Tribunal vide Judgment dated:08.11.2013 partly allowed the Claim Petition. The Insurance Company has assailed the Judgment of the Tribunal in this appeal on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of appeal.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:11286 MFA No. 650 of 2014

¶30

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

¶31

The point that requires consideration is whether the Tribunal is justified in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company?

¶32

The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. It is an interesting case of a claimant who claimed compensation contending that he sustained injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of the Mobile Crane in a public road.

¶33

The claimant contended that the second respondent is the owner of the Mobile Crane. It is pivotal to note that the alleged accident appears to have occurred at a public place. The Insurance company issued CPM Policy to the second respondent covering the risk of insured premises as declared in the policy insurance and it did not issue a Motor Insurance Policy to the second respondent so as to comply the provisions of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Needless to observe that the

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:11286 MFA No. 650 of 2014

¶35

third party liability covers only when the accident occurs by the Mobile Crane in the insured location. However, in the present case, the accident occurred at a public place. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal has overlooked this aspect of the matter and has erroneously fastened liability on the Insurance Company. This is unsustainable in law.

¶36

To conclude, I can say only this much that the Tribunal has failed to have regard to relevant consideration and disregarded relevant matters.

¶37

For the reasons stated above, the Judgment dated:08.11.2013 passed by the MACT, XXIV Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bangalore in MVC No.3800/2012 in so far as fastening liability on the Insurance company is concerned is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, it is set-aside. The Insurance Company is exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.

¶38

In view of exoneration of liability on the Insurance Company, the second respondent is directed to satisfy the award of the Tribunal.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:11286 MFA No. 650 of 2014

¶41

Resultantly, the Miscellaneous First Appeal is

¶42

allowed .

¶43

The Registry concerned is directed to refund/ release the amount in deposit, if any in favor of the Insurance Company after due identification.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri Lino Tharakan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri Lino Tharakan

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

The Branch Manager Vs Kum P G Mouna

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri P Kempanna Gowda

Sri Kataiah @ Durgada Kataiah Vs K S Riyazuddin

R Nanjappa Vs Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.

The Manager New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Boregowda

The Branch Manager Vs Upendra Achar