Legal Manager Vs Shantanakumar @ Girishantha

LEGAL MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.1 AND 2, 1ST FLOOR MAGANUR COMPLEX, NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND CHITRDURGA, NOW REP. BY ITS THE LEGAL MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE 5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING NO. 28, M.G. ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001. …APPELLANT

¶11

Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI

¶12

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

(BY SRI. PRADEEP B, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SHANTANAKUMAR @ GIRISHANTHA S/O DANDEPPA NOW AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT GUTTIKATTE-GOLLARAHATTI VILLAGE, HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA - 572 140.

¶16

SRINIVASA S/O VENKATAPPA

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:37430 MFA No. 5078 of 2015

¶18

2 -

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

CNR: KAHC010345262015

¶21

NOW AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/O BANASHANKARI STREET KOTE EXTENSION, HOSADURGA TOWN, CHITRADURGA - 572 140.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(R1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; VIDE ORDER DATED 01.02.2024, NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶24

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 9.1.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.21/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT, HOSADURGA, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.80,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT IN THE TRIBUNAL.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellant is present.

¶29

In spite of service of notice, the learned counsel

¶30

for the respondents did not turn up and set ex-parte .

¶31

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:37430 MFA No. 5078 of 2015

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

CNR: KAHC010345262015

¶34

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 09.01.2015 passed in MVC No.21/2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Hosadurga.

¶35

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant. The ranks of the parties are retained as per Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

¶36

The petitioner/injured met with an accident on 01.02.2009 and filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The Tribunal after considering the entire evidence on record granted a sum of Rs.80,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit. The Tribunal also observed that the policy is in force as on the date of accident and has directed respondent No.2/insurance company to deposit the said amount.

¶37

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:37430 MFA No. 5078 of 2015

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

CNR: KAHC010345262015

¶40

Aggrieved by the said award, the insurance

¶41

company has preferred the present appeal, mainly contending that the accident occurred on 01.02.2009, whereas the insurance policy was valid only from 06.11.2007 to 05.11.2008, as such the policy was not in force as on the date of the accident. But the Tribunal erred in fixing the liability against the insurance company. It is further contended that respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not produce a copy of the insurance policy before the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., V/s Sunita Rathi¹ and National Insurance Company Ltd V/s Sabina Lakai and Others² , in which it was held that the date and time mentioned in the insurance policy are relevant.

¶42

Admittedly, the insurance policy was expired in November 2008 and the accident occurred nearly three

¶43

1 AIR 1998 SC 257

¶44

2 2007 ACJ 2043 SC

¶45

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:37430 MFA No. 5078 of 2015

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

CNR: KAHC010345262015

¶48

months thereafter. As such, the insurance policy was not in force as on the date of the accident and the insurance company cannot be held liable. It is also stated that the copy of the insurance policy is not filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the Tribunal even then the Tribunal erred in holding that the policy is in force without any basis and fastened the liability against the insurance company. Therefore, this Court finds that the order of the Tribunal regarding fixing liability on the insurance company is to be set aside.

¶49

However, the petitioner before the Tribunal is at liberty to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle.

¶50

With the above observations, the appeal filed by the insurance company is allowed and insurance company is exonerated from liability.

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:37430 MFA No. 5078 of 2015

¶53