Allowed

Mr Nagaraju J.M. v. the Manager

Karnataka HC23 Aug 2024MFA/6650/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimant's appeal against motor accident award where tribunal fastened liability on owner because the vehicle's fitness certificate had expired at the time of accident. Court held Section 149 defences do not cover fitness certificate; insurer held liable to pay third-party claimants with right of recovery from owner.

What did the court decide?

Award modified: insurer held liable to pay compensation to claimants first, recoverable from owner without separate proceedings.

Mr Nagaraju J.M. Vs the Manager — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:34078 MFA No. 6650 of 2015

¶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. 6650 / 2015 (MV-I)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MR. NAGARAJU, S/O MUDDANNA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/ATNO.19, 6^TH CROSS, 4^TH MAIN, KOTTIGEPALYA, BANGALORE-91. PERMANENT ADDRESS: NO.124, ARSIKERE, PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

[BY SRI SHRIPAD V. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE (VC)]

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE MANAGER THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. T.P. HUB, KRUSHI BHAVAN BUILDING, 6^TH FLOOR, HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE-01.

¶14

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

¶15

MR.MANJUNATHA A.

¶16

S/O ANJINAPPA, NO.252, SRIRAMA TEMPLE ROAD, KADUGODI ROAD, BANGALORE DISTRICT-560067

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

[BY SRI KRISHNA KISHORE., ADVOCATE FOR R1 (PH); NOTICE TO R2 - SERVED]

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.03.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.905/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, 20^TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC:34078 MFA No. 6650 of 2015

¶22

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

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

Challenging judgment and award dated 16.03.2015 passed by XX Additional Small Causes Judge & Member MACT, Bengaluru, (SCCH-22), in MVC no.905/2013, this appeal is filed.

¶25

Sri Shripad V. Shastri, learned counsel for appellant submitted, appeal was by claimant mainly challenging award on finding insofar as liability and also on quantum. It was submitted, occurrence of accident, claimant sustaining injury in said accident due to rash and negligent driving of insured vehicle, issuance of insurance policy and it's validity as on date of accident are not in dispute. It was submitted, tribunal assessed compensation and held owner liable to pay same by exonerating insurer, on ground that as per Ex.R.3 - 'B' register extract of offending vehicle, fitness certificate issued was valid upto 01.08.2012, and accident had occurred thereafter, on 22.12.2012. It was submitted, exoneration was by relying on

¶26

decision in case of Nazeer @ Nazeer Ahamed Vs. Chandrasheara Gowda & Another reported in 2014 (2)

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:34078 MFA No. 6650 of 2015

¶29

KAR 269 , which would not be justified as claim in instant case was by third party and non-possession of fitness certificate was not among limited defences available to insurer under Section 149 of Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'M.V.Act'). Therefore, award called for interference.

¶30

On other hand, Sri Krishna Kishore, learned counsel for respondent-insurer opposed appeal. It was submitted, admittedly, accident had occurred after lapse of fitness certificate and while passing impugned award, tribunal relying on Nazeer @ Nazeer Ahamed 's case (supra), held lack of fitness certificate would invalidate registration of vehicle and consequently render policy invalid. Under such circumstances, liability fastened on owner by tribunal was justified.

¶31

It was alternatively submitted, even insurer is held liable to answer claims by third parties, it would be entitled for order of pay and recovery, as violation of terms and conditions of policy was explicit.

¶32

Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgment and award.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:34078 MFA No. 6650 of 2015

¶35

From above, since this claimants appeal is on

¶36

limited grounds, point that arises for consideration is:

¶37

"Whether award passed by tribunal calls for interference as sought for?”

¶38

Perusal of impugned award reveals sole ground on which tribunal held owner liable was expiry of fitness certificate prior to date of accident. There is no dispute about fact that claimants herein are third parties.

¶39

Section 149 of M.V. Act enumerates limited defences that are available to insurer. Same do not extend or cover law on fitness certificate. This Court in case of

¶40

Rangappa @ Rangappa Shetty Vs. Jayaramaiah and Another reported in ILR 2014 Kar. 191, dealt with similar situation had held, in case, fitness certificate issued would not cover entire duration for which insurance policy was issued, after collecting premium insurer would be estopped from contending policy would lapse due to non-renewal of fitness certificate.

¶41

Admittedly, even if fitness certificate were not to cover entire period for which insurance policy is issued, insurer would be required to notify insured about restriction or

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:34078 MFA No. 6650 of 2015

¶44

withdrawal of coverage. Only after such intimation, insurer can claim avoidance of its liability.

¶45

In instant case, admittedly claimants are third parties and Section 149 of M.V. Act does not provide for such defence to insurer. Further, Larger Bench of Kerala High Court in case of Pareed Pillai v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Ker 3543 under similar circumstances, held insurer would be liable to pay compensation to claimants in first instance and thereafter, recover same from insured.

¶46

On quantum, it is seen that tribunal has, on detailed consideration, determined compensation under various heads and same, on over all consideration, does not either appear to be totally contrary to record or grossly inadequate. Hence, there would be no grounds for interference on quantum.

¶47

In view of above, point for consideration is answered in affirmative . Consequently, following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

Appeal is allowed ; Impugned judgment and award dated 16.03.2015 passed by XX Additional Small Causes Judge & Member

¶50

¶51

NC: 2024:KHC:34078 MFA No. 6650 of 2015

¶52

MACT, Bengaluru, (SCCH-22), in MVC no.905/2013 stands modified to extent of holding insurer liable to pay compensation to claimants in first instance and thereafter, recover same from owner of insured vehicle, without having to take recourse to separate proceedings.

¶53

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶54

Psg* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

Mr Nagaraju J.M. v. the Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Nagaraju J.M. v. the Manager

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

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

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Vs K a Narasimhappa

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Surekha