The Branch Manager Vs C Raju

THE BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. NO.1114/63, 2^ND FLOOR TAKKUR COMPLEX, 1^ST MAIN ROAD S.C. ROAD, YESHWANTHAPURA BANGALORE-560 022 BY REGIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. 5^TH FLOOR, KRISHIN BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, HUDSON CIRCLE BANGALORE-560 027 BY IT’S MANAGER

¶14

(BY SRI. O MAHESH., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶15

B K RAJU AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O KAPANIGOWDA BOMMANAYAKANAHALLI MALUR HOBLI, CHANNAPTANA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-571 511.

¶16

…APPELLANT

¶17

SRI PANNEER SELVAM AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:34059 MFA No. 6052 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 6053 of 2013

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

S/O SUBRAMANI NO.287, 5^TH MAIN ROAD PRAKASHNAGAR, BANGALORE-560 021.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. S G LOKESH., ADVOCATE FOR R1, V/O DTD:28.10.2015 NOTICE TO R2 IS ACCEPTED)

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED24.4.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.104/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, RAMANAGARAM, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.2,04,890/-WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DATE OF PAYMENT. IN MFA NO. 6053/2013: BETWEEN: THE BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., NO.1114/63, 2^ND FLOOR, TAKKUR COMPLEX, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, S.C.ROAD, YASHWANTHAPURA, BANGALORE-560022. BY REGIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSRUANCE CO.LTD., 5^TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 027 BY ITS MANAGER.

¶24

...APPELLANT

¶25

(BY SRI. O MAHESH., ADVOCATE)

¶26

AND:

¶27

C RAJU AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, S/O. CHANNEGOWDA @ KOOKANNA, CHAMALAPURA VILLAGE,

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:34059 MFA No. 6052 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 6053 of 2013

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

MADDUR TALUK,

¶31

MANDYA DISTRICT- 57401.

¶32

SRI PANNEER SELVAM AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O SUBRAMANI, NO.287, 5^TH MAIN ROAD, PRAKASHNAGAR, BANGALORE-560 021.

¶33

...RESPONDENTS

¶34

(BY SRI. S G LOKESH., ADVOCATE FOR R1, V/O DTD:28.10.2015 NOTICE TO R2 IS ACCEPTED)

¶35

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 24.4.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.104/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, RAMANAGARAM, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.15,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DATE OF PAYMENT.

¶36

THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 02.07.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶37

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶38

CAV JUDGMENT

¶39

Additional Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Ramanagaram, passed a common award dated 24.04.2013 in MVC Nos.104 of 2009 and 105 of 2009. The injured claimants met with an accident on 15.05.2006 and filed the respective claim petitions

¶40

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:34059 MFA No. 6052 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 6053 of 2013

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.12,00,000/respectively. The tribunal considered the entire evidence on record and granted amount of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.2,05,890/respectively with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. It was held that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally held liable to pay compensation.

¶43

Aggrieved by the said order, appellant-insurance company has filed MFA No.6052 of 2013 against the award passed in MVC No.105 of 2009 and the same insurance company has filed MFA No.6053 of 2013 against the award passed in MVC No.104 of 2009. It is mainly contended by the appellant-insurance company that the Tribunal erred in relying upon the judgment rendered in M.F.A. No.10503 of 2005 dated 04.01.2008 ignoring ruling of Division Bench of this Court reported in ILR 2012 KAR 6065 on the point of liability respecting geographical area permitted under permit issued to the insured vehicle. It is contended that the insured auto was being plied beyond permitted area as per Exhibit R3, but the Tribunal, without proper reading of the policy under Exhibit R2

¶44

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:34059 MFA No. 6052 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 6053 of 2013

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

and also the evidence R.W.1, observed that there is no such condition in the policy. It is further contended that the insured auto was permitted to be plied within radius of 25 kilometres from Bangalore and at the time of the accident, it was being plied 65 kilometres from Bangalore. Therefore, it is a clear violation of the permit law and policy terms. The Tribunal granted amount without appreciating the facts properly. It is further contended that there is clear violation of permit. As per Exhibit R3, permit was given to ply the vehicle for 25 kilometres from Bangalore. But, accident occurred near Chennapatna, which is at a distance of 60 kilometres. Therefore, requested to set aside the order of the Tribunal passed in the aforesaid MVCs.

¶47

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for both sides.

¶48

Admittedly, the Tribunal observed that there is no such condition in the policy-Exhibit R2 that the insured auto cannot ply beyond the permitted area and therefore, the appellant-insurance company cannot escape from its liability. Perusal of Exhibit R2-copy of policy shows that there is no

¶49

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:34059 MFA No. 6052 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 6053 of 2013

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

specific condition stated regarding permit violation. The

¶52

limitation as to use stated in the policy reads as follows:

¶53

“ The Policy covers use only under a permit within the meaning of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 or such a carriage falling under sub-section 3 of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988.

¶54

The Policy does not cover use for

¶55

a) Organised Racing

¶56

b) Pace Making

¶57

c) Reliability Trails

¶58

d) Speed Testing”

¶59

Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the

¶60

judgment of this Court in the case of Sri B.T. Venkatesh vs.

¶61

Sri Jagadeesh Kumar and others reported in ILR 2012 KAR

¶62

6065.

¶63

Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

¶64

Amrit Paul Singh and another Vs. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. and others reported in AIR 2018 SC

¶65

2662 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:

¶66

“Use of vehicle in public place without permit is fundamental statutory infraction, pay and recover principle applicable, insurer though liable to pay compensation to claimants but entitled to recover same from owner and driver.”

¶67

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:34059 MFA No. 6052 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 6053 of 2013

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company contended that the violation is not about 5 to 6 kilometers, but it is 40 kilometers. As such, above citation referred by the learned counsel for the respondent is not applicable to the facts of this case. Perusal of the judgment in Amrit Paul Singh, supra, relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent shows that there is no such distinction made in the judgment. In the said judgment, it was further held as follows:

¶70

“The existence of a permit of any nature is a matter of documentary evidence. Nothing has been brought on record by the insured to prove that he had a permit of the vehicle. In such a situation, the onus cannot be case on the insurer. Therefore, the tribunal as well as the High Court had directed the insurer was required to pay the compensation amount to the claimants with interest with the stipulation that the insurer shall be entitled to recover the same from the owner and the driver. The said directions are in consonance with principles stated in Swaran Singh (supra) and other cases pertaining to pay and recover principle.”

¶71

Therefore, this Court finds it reasonable to invoke the

¶72

provision of pay and recovery.

¶73

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:34059 MFA No. 6052 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 6053 of 2013

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

Accordingly, both the appeals are disposed of with the following observations:

¶76

(i) The appellant insurance company is specifically directed to pay compensation amount with interest at 6% per annum, within one week from the date of this order.

¶77

(ii) On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with the interest accrued on it.

¶78

(iii) The appellant-insurance company is at liberty to recover the said amount from the owner of the vehicle by due process of law.

¶79

(iv) Amount in deposit is to be transferred to the

¶80

Tribunal.

¶81

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶82

CS CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50

The Branch Manager v. C Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Branch Manager v. C Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. H Sindhu Vs Sri Dayanand G P

Harsha N Vs Bajaj Allianz Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd

Smt. Radha Vs the Divisional Controller

Gousiya Banu Vs Syed Mahamed

Smt Varalakshmi B.R Vs Sri K.B. Chandrakumar

Sri Afsar Pasha Vs Mr. Syed Ilyas