The Branch Manager Vs Smt Nani @ Chandrika

THE BRANCH MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., MANGALORE BRANCH, BALMATTA. BY THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, "SHANKAR BUILDING", OPP: SHANKAR VITTAL GUARAGE MOSQUE ROAD, UDUPI. BY NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.144, SUBHARAM COMPELX, M G ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001, BY ITS MANAGER.

¶10

(BY SRI. O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

SMT. NANI @ CHANDRIKA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, W/O LATE RAJU, R/O MANIYIL VEEDU, MUDAKKOZHI, MUZHAKUNNU POST, GRAMA VILLAGE,

¶14

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:32437 MFA No. 773 of 2015

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

KANNUR DISTRICT, KERALA STATE - 04.

¶17

SEEJO, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O JACOB, R/O AT ASST. LECTURER, SAHYADHRI COLLEGE OF NURSING, FALNIR ROAD, KANKANADY, MANGALORE - 575 001.

¶18

KAMATH ANUP G. MAJOR, S/O K. GOPAL KRISHNA KAMATH, NO.202, BLOCK FIRST, MIT MANIPAL, UDUPI - 576 101.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(R1, R2 SERVED; VIDE ORDER DATED 28.10.2021, NOTICE TO R3 HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.08.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.966/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.3,36,000 WITH INTEREST @ 8% FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.

¶22

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

¶23

3 -

¶24

NC: 2025:KHC:32437 MFA No. 773 of 2015

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellant is present.

¶29

Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are absent, though notice is served have remained ex-parte.

¶30

Heard the appellant's counsel. He mainly contended that the policy was an Act Policy and no additional premium was paid for the pillion rider, as such, the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation.

¶31

This appeal is preferred against the award of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal & Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Udupi passed in MVC No. 966/2008 dated 22.08.2014.

¶32

It is a case of death. One Raju met with an accident on 19.05.2008 and died. His parents filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.6,49,857/along with interest and the Tribunal considering the

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:32437 MFA No. 773 of 2015

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.3,36,600/with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of actual deposit. Aggrieved by the said order, Insurance Company has preferred this appeal, wherein, it is stated that the deceased was a pillion rider and he is not the third party and the policy issued was an Act Policy. The complaint was lodged after three weeks. Insurer filed only copy of the policy as per Ex.R1. The accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the motor cycle only and thus, requested the Court to exonerate insurer from paying the compensation.

¶36

The Tribunal considered that as on the date of

¶37

death, the policy was in existence and the conflict of negligence was not found and therefore, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are jointly and severally made liable to pay the compensation and directed respondent No.2 therein to deposit the amount.

¶38

5 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:32437 MFA No. 773 of 2015

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

A perusal of the written statement filed by the

¶42

Insurance Company clearly shows that motor cycle was having statutory policy (liable to only policy) at the time of the accident. As per the terms of the policy, risk of the inmates/occupant is not covered and thus, risk of the petitioner is not covered under the policy.

¶43

The counsel submitted that, no doubt, policy was in existence. As it was Act policy, additional premium was to be paid to the pillion rider but it was not paid. As such, the appellant herein is not liable to pay the compensation. Therefore, this Court finds that, it is just and reasonable to set aside the award of the Tribunal to an extent of fixing liability against the Insurance Company and the remaining order regarding the assessment of compensation and apportionment etc., holds good. Owner of the vehicle is liable to pay the compensation. Appeal against respondent No.1 is dismissed. Insurance Company is also entitled for refund of Rs.25,000/- and the

¶44