IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.12071 OF 2011 [MV] BETWEEN UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., NEXT TO MAGISTRATE COURT, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, KRUSHI BHAVAN, BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, 5TH & 6TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. ... APPELLANT [BY SRI. R.RAJAGOPALAN, ADVOCATE] AND 1. SMT. RAMYA S.V., W/O. T.R. DEVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, HIPPE ANJANEYA LAYOUT, BETHANAGERE ROAD, NELAMANGALA TOWN AND TALUK-562 123. BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
2. SRI. PHILIP P., MAJOR, S/O. PETER, JIGANI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE-560 068. ... RESPONDENTS [BY SRI. R.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR M/S. LAWYERS NET ADVOCATES FOR R1.
R2 - SERVICE OF NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 13.10.2015] THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.09.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.7802/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.3,75,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT IN COURT.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, challenging the impugned Judgment and Award dated 09.09.2011 passed in MVC No.7802/2010 on the file of the Court of Small Causes and MACT-V, Bengaluru City, wherein a total compensation of Rs.3,75,000/- has been awarded to the claimant/respondent No.1 for the death of her daughter aged about 3½ years in a road traffic accident which occurred on 17.10.2010.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
3. It is the case of the claimant that on the aforesaid fateful day, at about 9.00 p.m., her husband T.R.Devaraju had taken their daughter by name Chaitanya, aged about 3½ years on a motorcycle bearing reg. No.KA-03/HE-1254 to the bakery and while returning, near Anjaneya Temple on B.H.Road, Nelamangala Town, he rode the said motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner without observing the road hump, on account of which, their daughter fell down and sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries at the spot.
The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,75,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of payment.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the offending motorcycle was borrowed by the husband of respondent No.1 from respondent No.3 before the Tribunal and therefore, at the time of accident respondent No.1 himself would be the owner of the said motorcycle and since he is the father of the deceased, no compensation could have been awarded to the claimant. He would also submit that the claim petition was not maintainable due to the non-joinder of the rider of the offending motorcycle which caused the accident. In support of his case he would place reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of NINGAMMA AND ANOTHER VS. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
reported in 2009 ACJ 2020.
5. The accident in question involving the motorcycle bearing reg. No.KA-03/HE-1254, due to which the minor daughter of respondent No.1 succumbing to the injuries are not disputed. The said motorcycle is insured with the appellant herein. The claimant is the mother of the deceased. As far as the deceased is concerned, she is the third party and in view of the valid Insurance Policy issued in respect of the motorcycle in question, the claimant is entitled for compensation. The Judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant is not applicable to the facts of the present case for the simple reason that it is in respect of an accident wherein the rider himself died in the accident and it was a claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
6. It is well-settled that when a third party is involved, the liability of the Insurance Company would be unlimited. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. Admittedly, as on the date of the accident, there was a valid Insurance Policy, which was in force. Hence, the order passed by the Tribunal directing the insurer of the vehicle/appellant herein, to deposit the compensation amount is justified. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER The appeal is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE.
Ksm*