IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3951/2009 (MV) BETWEEN:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., SHIMOGA.
REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER SRI.R N NAYAK ... APPELLANT (By Sri: B C SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. MR.NAZEER SAB S/O.ABDUL MOULA SAB AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS ARECA BUSINESS R/O.JOG ROAD, SAGAR TOWN SHIMOGA DIST 2. SRI.GANAPATHY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS S/O.DURGAPPA R/O.SURANAGADDE SAGAR TALUK, SHIMOGA DIST (DRIVER OF GOODS AUTO) 3. SRI.M R RAVINDRA @ RAVI KUDGE S/O.SRI. RAMAPPA ZP MEMBER R/O.KUGVE SAGAR TALUK, SHIMOGA DIST (OWNER OF GOODS AUTO NO.KA.15/1587) ... RESPONDENTS (By Sri: RANJITH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI: PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 R2 & R3 SERVED) ---
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 28.02.2009 PASSED IN MVC NO.216/2007 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) & MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, SAGAR, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 09.06.2017 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA. J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
J U D G M E N T The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is:
Whether the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is justified in directing the appellant/ Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount to the claimant and thereafter recover the same from the 3rd respondent/owner?
2. The brief facts essential for the disposal of this appeal are that the first respondent filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the I.M.V. Act, claiming a total compensation of Rs.2,90,000/- for the bodily injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle Accident. On considering the oral and documentary evidence produced by the claimant and the contesting respondent namely the Insurance company, the learned Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the driver of the involved vehicle was not possessing a valid driving license at the time of the accident and consequently, held that the appellant/Insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation amount for the injuries sustained by the claimant. However, placing reliance on the decision in I(2008) ACC 133 of the Hon’ble Orissa High Court in the case of Arat Das and others Vs. Shailendra Kumar Nayak & Others, the learned Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal directed the appellant herein to make payment of the compensation amount to the claimant and thereafter recover the same from the owner.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance company.
4. It is the contention of the learned counsel that in the wake of the clear finding that the Insured has violated the conditions of the policy, the direction issued to the appellant to make good the compensation and thereafter recover the same from the owner of the vehicle is manifestly illegal and is liable to be set aside.
5. The learned counsel has not referred to any provision of law or authority to buttress his argument, but in my view, the legal contention urged by the appellant /Insurance Company is set at rest by the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of S.IYYAPPAN vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.
LTD., & Another, (2013) 7 SCC 62 wherein it is held that, “the liability of the insurer is a statutory one. The liability of the insurer to satisfy the decree passed in favour of a third party is also statutory.” And further it is held that “It is the statutory right of a third party to recover the amount of compensation so awarded from the Insurer. It is for the Insurer to proceed against the Insured for recovery of the amount in the event there has been violation of any condition of the Insurance Policy.”
6. In the light of this proposition, the impugned direction does not call for interference. Appeal is devoid of merits.
Appeal dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Psg/-