IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.SREENIVASE GOWDA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No. 3042/2010 BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MMK COMPLEX, PJ EXTENSION, AKKAMAHADEVI COLLEGE ROAD, DAVANAGERE.
…APPELLANT (BY SHRI. P.B. RAJU, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI, W/O SHRI K.R. RANGASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O HOUSING BOARD COLONY, KELAGOTE, CHITRADURGA.
2. SHRI. RAMAMURTHY, S/O LATE PALANI SWAMY, GOUNDER, MAJOR, (OWNER OF THE AUTORIKSHAW BEARING NO. KA.16/4385), R/O ADIVALA FORM, HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DIST.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI. R. SHASHIDHARA ADVOCATE FOR R1.
R2 SERVED.) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 24.02.2010 PASSED IN MVC NO. 286/2008 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) & ADDITIONAL MACT, CHITRADURGA, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS. 33,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
J U D G M E N T Challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 24.02.2010 passed by the I Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chitradurga, in MVC. No.286/2008, on the ground of liability, the insurer of offending vehicle has preferred the present appeal.
2. Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for parties the appeal is heard and disposed of finally.
3. As there is no dispute regarding certain injuries sustained by the claimants in a road traffic accident occurred on 07.04.2007 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending Auto Rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-16-4385 by its driver and quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the only point that arises for my consideration in the appeal is:
“Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in fastening/saddling the labiality on the insurer of the offending vehicle?”
4. Shri. P.B. Raju, learned counsel for the appellant-insurer submits that the owner of the offending vehicle having permitted his driver to ply the auto beyond the permitted area by carrying more persons than the seating capacity, the appellant- insurer is not liable to indemnify the owner and pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants. The Tribunal without considering the above aspect of the matter has committed an error in fastening the liability on the insurer and therefore the learned counsel prays for allowing the appeal by modifying the Judgment and award of the Tribunal in so far as liability is concerned.
5. Four more persons who had also sustained injuries in the very same accident filed four separate claim petitions in MVC. No. 363/2007, 384/2007, 470/2007 & 471/2007 before the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) & Member the Additional MACT at Hiriyur. The Additional MACT, Hiriyur allowed those claim petitions and awarded compensation by fastening liability on the appellant – insurer. The appellant – insurer aggrieved by the said awards of the Addl. MACT Hiriyur had challenged the same on the ground of liability by preferring appeals before this Court, in MFA. Nos. 600/2010, 601/2010, 602/2010 & 603/2010. At the same time one of the claimants having not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in his claim petition filed in MVC. No. 363/2007 had also preferred an appeal before this Court in MFA. No. 7627/2010, seeking enhancement of compensation. This Court clubbed all the above appeals and by common judgment dated 25.04.2013 dismissed the appeals preferred in MFA. No. 600/2010, 601/2010, 602/2010 & 603/2010 by the appellant-insurer and allowed the appeal (MFA. No.7627/2010) filed by the claimant in MVC. No. 363/2007 and thereby upheld the findings of the Tribunal on liability. The said judgment passed by this Court in MFA. No.600/2010 and connected matters had attained its finality, inasmuch as, the same has remained unchallenged by the insurer. Hence, the point that arises for consideration in this appeal is already adjudicated by this Court in the above appeals against the appellant-insurer. In this view of the matter, the present appeal filed by the appellant-insurer is also liable to be dismissed, inasmuch as it is devoid of merit.
Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. The statutory amount deposited before this Court in the above shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal for disbursement of the same to the claimants, in terms of the awards passed by the Tribunal.
No order as to costs.
Vr.
SD/-
JUDGE