Divisional Manager Vs Ariff Lalsab Shildedar

DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI, REP. BY REGIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSUACE CO. LTD., MOTOR 3^RD PARTY CLAIMS HUB, NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBBALLI.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. S.V. YAJI, ADV)

¶13

AND:

¶14

ARIFF LALSAB SHILDEDAR

¶15

MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR

¶16

Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.08.30 15:41:45 +0530

¶17

AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: MASON, R/O: DEMATTI, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶18

BASHIRAHMAD IMAMSAB TALLUR AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: DASTIKOPPA, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. HANAMANT R. LATUR, ADV FOR R1, NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SEC. 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.10.2013, PASSED IN MVC NO.392/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, BAILHONGAL, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.2,57,400/- WITH THE INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

¶22

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10512

¶23

MFA No. 100143 of 2014

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)

¶29

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the Judgment and award dated 30.10.2013 passed in MVC No.392/2011 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Additional M.A.C.T., Bailhongal, (for short ‘the Tribunal).

¶30

Brief facts leading rise to filing of this appeal are as follows:

¶31

On 27.05.2010 at about 23.30 hours, on NH-4 Hanchinal, near Gulabsha Darga, the petitioner was travelling by sitting in a Tempo Trax bearing No.KA-16/C-1153 from Vishalgad to his native place. When the Tempo Trax came near to the spot, the driver of the said Tempo Trax drove the same in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and dashed the same to a Truck bearing No.KA-23/4732,

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10512 MFA No. 100143 of 2014

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

which was going ahead of the Tempo Trax in a slow manner, as a result the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries. The petition has spent a huge amount towards medical expenses. A criminal case was registered in Crime No.100/10 against the driver of the Tempo Trax bearing No.KA-16/C-1153. The petitioner has sustained injuries in a road traffic accident and filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition.

¶35

A Notice was issued to the owner. The owner filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that as on the date of the accident the driver of the Tempo Trax bearing No.KA-16/C-1153 was driving the vehicle at a moderate speed and when the tempo came near the truck, the driver of the truck suddenly applied the brake, as a result, the tempo dashed to the truck. It was further contended that there was no fault on the part of driver of the Tempo Trax and the driver of the Tempo Trax was holding a valid

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10512 MFA No. 100143 of 2014

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the owner of the vehicle.

¶39

The Insurnace Company filed statement of objections and contended that, as of the date of the accident, the vehicle Tempo Trax No.KA-16/C-1153 was insured with the Insurance Company under a private car package policy. However, the owner of the vehicle was used for hire purposes, which amounts to a breach of the policy conditions. It was alleged that the accident occurred due to negligent act of the driver of the Truck bearing No.KA-23/4732. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the insurance Company.

¶40

The Tribunal based on the pleadings of the parties framed the relevant issues.

¶41

To substantiate his case, the petitioner examined himself as PW-1, examined three witnesses as PW-2 to PW-4, and produced 64 documents, which were

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10512 MFA No. 100143 of 2014

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

marked as Ex.P1 to P64. Respondent No.2-Insurnace Company has not led any oral evidence. However, with the consent, marked one document as Ex.R1.

¶45

The Tribunal, after recording the evidence, hearing both sides and assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part vide judgment dated 30.10.2013 and awarded a compensation of Rs.2,57,400/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. It was further held that the respondents i.e. owner and Insurance Company are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount.

¶46

Aggrieved by the Judgment and award passed

¶47

by the Tribunal in MVC No.392/2011, the Insurance Company has filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal.

¶48

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company and the petitioner.

¶49

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10512 MFA No. 100143 of 2014

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the Tempo Trax bearing No.KA-16/C-1153 was insured with the Insurance Company under a private car package policy. As per terms of the policy, the owner of the vehicle was not permitted to use it for hire or reward purposes. He submits that as of the date of the accident, the vehicle was used for hire purpose. There is a breach of policy conditions. Hence, he submits that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation as claimed by the petitioner. He further submits that PW-1 himself admitted that, as of the date of the accident, the said vehicle was used for hire purpose. The admission of PW-1 was not considered by the Tribunal and committed an error in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company. Accordingly, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.

¶52

Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimant

¶53

submits that, in case the Court concludes that there is a breach of policy condition and he submit that as of the

¶54

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10512 MFA No. 100143 of 2014

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

date of accident, the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company. Therefore, he submits that the Insurance Company may be directed to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner at the first instance and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.

¶57

Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶58

Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the leaned counsel for the parties.

¶59

The point that would arise for consideration is regarding liability .

¶60

Reg. Liability

¶61

There is no dispute that the petitioner sustained the grievous injuries in the road traffic accident. Admittedly, he was travelling in the Tempo Trax bearing No.KA-16/C-1153 and the driver of the Tempo Trax dashed to the Truck bearing No.KA-23/4732. The said Truck was ahead of the Tempo Trax. A chargesheet was filed against the driver of the Tempo Trax bearing

¶62

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10512 MFA No. 100143 of 2014

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

No.KA-16/C-1153. During the cross-examination, the

¶65

petitioner admitted that the vehicle was used for hire purposes as of the date of the accident. Though, the policy was in force as of the date of the accident, it was admittedly a private car package policy according to which, the vehicle is to be used only for his personal purpose, and the owner of the vehicle cannot use it for hire or reward purpose. In view of the admission of PW-1 that the Tempo Trax was used for hire purposes and he was travelling in the said Tempo Trax ,there is violation of policy conditions by the owner of the Tempo Trax as he has used it for hire purposes. Admittedly, as of the date of the accident the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company and the policy was in force. The Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.

¶66

The Tribunal, without considering the said

¶67

aspect, committed an error in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company. Accordingly, the Judgment and award

¶68

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10512 MFA No. 100143 of 2014

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

passed by the Tribunal against the Insurance Company is arbitrary, perverse and erroneous.

¶71

Hence, in view of the above discussion, I

¶72

proceed to pass the following order:

¶73

ORDER

¶74

(i) The Appeal is allowed.

¶75

(ii) The Judgment and award dated 30.10.2013 passed in MVC No.392/2011 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Additional M.A.C.T. Bailhongal, is hereby set-aside and consequently, the claim petition against the Insurance Company is hereby dismissed.

¶76

(iii) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.

¶77

10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10512 MFA No. 100143 of 2014

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

(iv) The amount in deposit, if any, and Trial Court Records, be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶80

Sd/(ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE

¶81

RHR/CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

Divisional Manager v. Ariff Lalsab Shildedar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Divisional Manager v. Ariff Lalsab Shildedar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurappa S/O. Saidappa Ambi Vs Kristappa @ Kristanappa S/O Saidappa Ambi

Chairman and Managing Director Vs Hanumant S/O Chittiray Devadiga

Smt. Neelavva W/O Puttappa Hulagur Vs Section Officer

Mahadevi W/O Gulappa Angadi Vs Sharanappa S/O Irappa Kolli

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Abhishek S/O Appasab Anagalli

The Divisional Controller Vs Shri.Suresh Shankar Bekkeri