IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT MFA No.7208 OF 2018 (MV) BETWEEN HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.25/1, BUILDING NO.2, II FLOOR, SHANKARANARAYANA BUILDINGS, M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001 BY ITS MANAGER (L) ... APPELLANT (BY SRI H.S.LINGARAJ, ADVOCATE) AND 1. ANWAR PASHA NOW AGED AOBUT 25 YEARS S/O. MUKBAL M.
R/O. KAJEE MOHALLA ALUR TOWN HASSAN DISTRICT 2. SAMEER KHAN MAJOR S/O. RAVOOP KHAN R/O. NO.80/2, KANATHURU ALUR TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ARCHANA MURTHY P., ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:01.06.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.1691/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, HASSAN, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.2,15,800/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A.FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT This appeal by the insurer lays a challenge to the Judgment and award dated 01.06.2018 made by the Additional MACT, Hassan whereby the claim petition in MVC.No.1691/2016 having been favoured, a compensation of Rs.2,15,800/- has been awarded with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. thereon. After service of notice, respondent No.1 having entered appearance through his counsel, opposes the appeal.
2. Brief facts of the case are:
(a) In a vehicular accident that happened on 30.12.2015 because of rash & negligent driving of the offending motor cycle bearing Registration No.KA-46-3027, the claimant having sustained grievous injuries had laid a claim for compensation; the claim petition was resisted by the respondent/Insurer, inter alia contending that it is only an Act Policy, which does not cover the claim; a Written Statement too was filed in the MACT.
(b) To prove the claim, the claimant came to be examined as PW-1, Dr.Abdul Basheer who had treated the injuries, was examined as PW-2; from the claimant side 12 documents came to be marked which inter alia comprised of Police papers, IMV Report and Medical Records. From the side of respondent, one Smt.Madhumathi Hegde, the Legal Officer of the appellant-Insurer was examined as RW1 and in her evidence, two documents namely, authorization letter and insurance policy came to be produced as Ex.R1 & Ex.R2 respectively.
3. The MACT after adverting to the pleadings of the parties and after weighing the evidentiary material on record passed the impugned judgment & award which are put in challenge on the sole ground that the insurer could not have been fastened with liability at all, in view of nature of the policy i.e., the Act Policy. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-claimant vehemently opposes the appeal stating that the MACT having interpreted the policy in question, this Court should not interfere in the matter.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused appeal papers, this Court is of the considered opinion that the policy in question is only an “Act Policy” and therefore, no liability could have been fastened on the insurer as consistently held by this Court in a catena of decisions.
In the above circumstances, this appeal succeeds; the impugned judgment & award to the extent they levy the liability on the appellant-insurer is set aside. However, the same qua the owner of the offending vehicle is left intact and it is open to the respondent-claimant to execute the judgment & award against him in accordance with law.
The amount in deposit shall be refunded to the appellant-insurer forthwith.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE KTY