IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.NO.1024 OF 2015 (MV) BETWEEN Smt. Rajeevi, W/o. Late Devappa Sapalya, Aged about 60 years, R/at. Mugrodi House, Sanjay Nagar, Mangalore, D.K. District, PIN – 575 009.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G., ADVOCATE) AND 1. Yakoob, S/o. Hasanabba, Aged about 51 years, R/at. Basthipadpu, Near Madani Quarters, Ullal, PIN – 575 020.
2. National Insurance Co. Ltd., I Floor, Emjays Complex, Balmatta, Mangalore, D.K., Represented by its Manager. PIN – 575 001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. SRISHAILA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 19.11.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.117/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MACT, MANGALORE, D.K., C/C. PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The claimant is in appeal under Section 173(1) of the M.V.Act, aggrieved by fixing the liability on respondent No.1 under the judgment and award dated 19-11-2014 in M.V.C.No.117/2011 on the file of the III Additional District Judge & IV Additional MACT, Mangalore.
2. The appellant – claimant, wife of the deceased filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation for the death of her husband – Devappa in a road traffic accident which occurred on 24.11.2010. The occurrence of accident on 24.11.2010 and accidental death of the husband of the claimant is not in dispute in this appeal. The only question is as to whether the Tribunal is justified in fastening the liability on respondent No.1.
3. The Insurance Co. contended that the autorickshaw which was involved in the accident had violated permit condition by plying outside the permit area. The Tribunal finding that the autorickshaw had violated the permit condition by plying outside the permit area, fastened the liability on the respondent No.1 – owner of the autorickshaw.
4. The first respondent – owner of the autorickshaw had permit to ply the said vehicle within the jurisdiction of Mangalore Rural taluk, excluding the Corporation limits. But the accident had taken place in Ullal Town Panchayat area. R.W.1 – R.T.O. has stated that the first respondent could not have driven the autorickshaw within the limits of Ullal Town Panchayat and it was plying in an area which is prohibited. Based on the evidence of R.W.1 – R.T.O., the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the autorickshaw was plying outside the permitted area and it held that respondent No.1 is liable to pay compensation.
5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of AMRIT PAUL SINGH vs. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS reported in (2018) 7 SCC 558 and in the case of RANI AND OTHERS vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
AND OTHERS reported in (2018) 8 SCC 492, held that even though there is violation of permit conditions, the insurer is liable to satisfy the award, with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.
6. Following the principle laid down in the above decisions, the appeal is allowed in part. The second respondent – insurer is directed to deposit the compensation awarded by the Tribunal with liberty to the Insurance Co. to recover the same from owner of the offending vehicle.
Appeal is disposed of.
Mgn/-
Sd/- JUDGE