IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD MFA No. 7130/2018 (MV) C/W MFA No.7129/2018 (MV) IN MFA No.7130/2018 BETWEEN:
JABIR SINGH S/O. CHIRANJILAL AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT NO. 328, 5TH MAIN, 3RD CROSS RAVI KIRLOSKAR LAYOUT BENGALURU 560073.
... APPELLANT (By SRI. MAHADEVA SWAMY P., ADV.) AND 1. THE MANAGER IFFCO-TOKIO GEN INS CO. LTD., SRI. SHANTHI TOWERS 5TH FLOOR, NO. 141, 3RD MAIN EAST OF NGEF LAYOUT KASTURINAGAR, BANGALORE 84 2. B R PRADEEP S/O. RAJA NARASIMHA MURTHY PROP: SLR TRAVEL, HULILYUR CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TLAUK TUMKUR 03 ... RESPONDENTS (By SRI.KALYAN R., ADV. FOR R2. BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADV., FOR R1) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:13.04.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.3010/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SCJ & XXXIII ACMM, MEMBER-MACT, BENGALURU, [SCCH-5] PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO.7129/2018 BETWEEN KRISHNA KUMAR @ KRISHAN KUMAR S/O. INDAR SINGH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT NO. 181,SRIKANTAPURA BENGLAURU 560073.
(BY SRI.MAHADEVA SWAMY P., ADV.) AND 1. THE MANAGER IFFCO-TOKIO GEN INS CO LTD., SRI. SHANTHI TOWERS ... APPELLANT 5TH FLOOR, NO. 141, 3RD MAIN EAST OF NGEF LAYOUT KASTURINAGAR, BANGALORE 84 2. B R PRADEEP S/O. RAJA NARASIMHA MURTHY PROP: SLR TRAVEL, HULILYUR CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TLAUK TUMKUR 03.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADV. FOR R1, SRI.KALYAN R., ADV. FOR R2.) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:13.04.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.3009/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL SCJ & XXXIII ACMM, MEMBER-MACT, BENGALURU, [SCCH-5], PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE MFAs COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT These appeals are filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and award dated 13.4.2017 passed by the Court of VIII Addl. Small Causes Judge and the MACT, Bengaluru in MVC Nos.3010/2015 and MVC 3009/2015 respectively on the ground of liability.
2. Since both these appeals are arising out of the common judgment and award of the Tribunal, they are heard together and disposed of finally.
3. Brief facts of the case:
On 14.6.2015, at about 9.15 p.m. when the claimants were proceeding on motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-01-EM-121 as rider and pillion rider respectively from T.Begur towards Makali on Tumkur-Bengaluru NH-4 Road and when they reached near KBD Factor, Nelamangala, a bus bearing Registration No.KA-44-1531 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle and caused accident. As a result, they sustained injuries and immediately they were shifted to the hospital. After recovering from injuries, the claimants filed two separate claim petitions before the Tribunal. In order to support their case, they examined themselves as PWs-1 and 2 and submitted 12 documents. On the other hand, the Insurance Company examined two witnesses as RWs-1 and produced 2 documents. After appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- in MVC 3009/2015 and Rs.7,76,000/- in MVC 3010/2015 with interest at 9% p.a. and fastened the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle. Being aggrieved by fastening the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle, the present appeals are filed by the claimants .
4. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has erred in fastening the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle had violated the route permit and had plied the vehicle beyond the route limit prescribed in the permit. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rani –v- National Insurance Company Ltd [(LAWS(SC) 2018 7 91]. Therefore, he prays for allowing the appeals by fastening the liability on the Insurance Company.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal is justified in fastening the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle had violated the permit conditions. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the appeals.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Perused the records.
7. It is not in dispute that the claimants had sustained injuries in a road traffic accident occurred on 14.6.2015 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. It is also not in dispute that the driver of the offending vehicle had violated the terms and conditions of the route permit and had plied the vehicle beyond the limit mentioned in the route permit. However, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rani (supra), the Insurance Company has to pay the compensation to the claimants as determined by the Tribunal with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.
8. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The judgment and award dated 13.4.2017 passed by the Court of VIII Addl. Small Causes Judge and the MACT, Bengaluru in MVC Nos.3009/2015 and MVC 3010/2015 on the ground of liability stands modified. It is held that the Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount along with interest as determined by the Tribunal in both the cases with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE DM