IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G.NIJAGANNAVAR MFA.NO.3189/2012 C/W MFA.NO.5283/2012 (MV, D) IN MFA.NO.3189/2012 BETWEEN:
1. ANNAPOORNA K S @ ANNAPOORNESWARI W/O LATE SATHYANARAYAN SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT C/O REDDAPPA, NO29, 8TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS, JAYANAGARA 2ND BLOCK, NEAR K.V.K. MEDICAL STORE, BANGALORE-560 011.
2. SUHAS S/O LATE SATHYANARAYAN SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS, 3. CHETAN S/O LATE SATHYANARAYAN SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS, 4. LAKSHMI D/O LATE SATHYANARAYAN SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS, APPELLANT Nos. 2 TO 4 ARE MINORS REP. BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT.ANNAPOORNA K.S.
…APPELLANTS (BY SRI RAMESH ANANTHAN, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED REGIONAL OFFICE NO.23, M.G.ROAD, SHANKARANARAYANA BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. SRI SANNAULLA A S/O AMANULLA, POTATO MERCHANT, M.B.ROAD, KOLAR, KOLAR DISTRICT.
3. ALLA BAKESH S/O SRI S G AMANULLA, R/AT NEAR NEW CACOON MARKET, M.B.ROAD, KOLAR.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI L.SREEKANTA RAO AND SMT. S.VIDYA RAO, ADV., FOR R1 SRI V.K.NARAYANA SWAMY, ADV., FOR R2 & R3 V/O DT: 13.03.2014 NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:24.11.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.316/2010 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
MFA.NO.5283/2012 BETWEEN:
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.25, M.G.ROAD, SHANKARNARAYAN BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR, BANGALORE-560 001.
NOW AT HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 001.
REP. BY ITS MANAGER P.NAVAMANI.
…APPELLANT (BY SRI SREEKANTA RAO & SMT.S.VIDYA RAO, ADVS.,) AND:
1. ANNAPOORNA K.S.
@ ANNAPOORNESWARI W/O LATE SATHYANARAYANA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT C/O REDDAPPA, NO.29, 8TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS, JAYANAGARA 2ND BLOCK, NEAR KVK MEDICAL STORE, BANGALORE-560 011.
2. SUHAS S/O LATE SATHYANARAYAN SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS, 3. CHETAN S/O LATE SATHYANARAYANA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS, 4. LAKSHMI D/O LATE SATHYANARAYANA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS, PETITIONERS NO. 2 TO 4 ARE MINORS REP. BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT ANNAPOORNA K.S.
5. SANNAULLA A S/O AMANULLA, POTATO MERCHANT M.B. ROAD, KOLAR KOLAR DISTRICT.
6. ALLA BAKESH S/O SRI S.G.AMANULLA, R/AT NEAR NEW CACOON MARKET, M.B. ROAD, KOLAR.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V.K.NARAYANA SWAMY, ADV., FOR R5 R1-SERVED, R2 TO R4 ARE MINORS REP. BY R1) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 24.11.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.316/2010 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND MACT, BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.5,50,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM 20.01.2010 TILL REALIZATION.
THESE MFAs COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, NARAYANA SWAMY, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT MFA.No.3189/2012 is filed by the claimants against the judgment and award dated 24.11.2011 passed in MVC.No.316/2010 on the file of I Addl. Small Causes Judge & MACT, Bangalore, for enhancement of compensation and MFA.No.5283/2012 is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the liability fastened on them.
2. The only ground taken by the Insurance Company is that the vehicle, which involved in the accident was not having valid permit. In support of his case, he relied upon judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Amrit Paul Singh and Another Vs. TATA AIG General Insurance Co., Ltd., and Others reported in AIR 2018 SC 2662 and submitted that having valid permit is a mandatory one. In the circumstances, it is the submission that the Insurance Company has to be absolved and the liability has to be fastened on the owner.
3. The learned counsel for the owner submits that though he was served, was placed exparte before the Tribunal and he could not make any participation in the proceedings. It is further submitted that he was having valid permit and had the insurance policy coverage. Under these circumstances, he should be given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings.
4. The learned counsel for the claimants who also filed an appeal submits that if the matter is remitted back, it may take some time and in order to expedite, the Insurance Company could pay the compensation and later recover the same from the owner.
5. Heard the learned counsel on both sides in both the cases and perused the material on record.
6. Though, the owner is served, was unrepresented and he was placed exparte before the Tribunal. Now, before this Court, he has been served. Hence, he may be permitted to place the documents and evidence for the satisfaction of the Court, so that the liability can be fastened on the Insurance Company.
7. The accident is of the year 2009. Almost for a decade, the claimants are made to suffer and the delay has defeated for the purpose of the Act. However, on the submission made by the owner, we hold that matter has to be remitted back in order to provide him an opportunity based on his submission that valid permit was there, but it was for renewal and also there was coverage of policy. Hence, it is appropriate to remit the matter in the interest of both the parties for the purpose of passing fresh order. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal has to be set aside.
8. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The judgment and award dated 24.11.2011 passed in MVC.No.316/2010 is set aside. The matter is remitted back for fresh consideration. The Tribunal is directed to complete the proceedings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Both the parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 02.02.2019 without awaiting any notice.
The amount in deposit is directed to be refunded to the Insurance Company.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE PB