IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH MFA NO. 10816/2012(MV) C/W MFA No. 10817/2012 (MV) MFA No. 10818/2012 (MV) IN MFA 10816/2012 BETWEEN:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., PUTTUR DIVISIONAL OFFICE THROUGH REGIONAL OFFICE 5TH & 6TH FLOORS KRISHIBHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE BANGALORE-560 001.
REP. BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. JANARDHAN REDDY, ADV.,) AND 1. SRI. H.C. GIRISH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O SRI. LATE H.V. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH 2. SRI. H.C. MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS S/O SRI. LATE H.V. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH BOTH ARE RESIDING NO.292/33 MANJUNATHA NILAYA PRASHANTHA NAGAR CHIKKABALLAPUR CITY CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT.
3. SRI. VINAYACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O SRI. LATE DEVADAS POOJARI R/AT JANKAR MANE BADAGAKHAJE KARU VILLAGE BANTWALA TALUK SOUTH KANARA DISTRICT D.K. (OWNER OF THE TEMPO BEARING NO.KA-19-B-4690) 4. THE MANAGER ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANZ INSURANCE CO. LTD., WHITES ROAD, CHENNAI-600 0014 (INSURER OF THE TEMPO BEARING NO.KA-19-B-4690) 5. SRI. JAISON M.S. S/O SRI. SUBASTIAN MADHERI HOUSE NELIYEDADI, PUTTUR TALUK D.K. DISTRICT.
(OWNER OF THE JEEP BEARING NO.KA-12-A-4579) ….RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.PRASANNA V.R., ADV. FPR R1 & R2, SRI. K. SURYANARAYANA RAO, ADV. FOR R4, R3 & R5 ARE SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:04.09.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.7960/2009 ON THE FILE OF XIX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND XLI ACMM, MACT, BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.2,12,500/- WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
IN MFA 10817/2012 BETWEEN:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., PUTTUR DIVISIONAL OFFICE THROUGH REGIONAL OFFICE 5TH & 6TH FLOORS KRISHIBHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE BANGALORE-560 001.
REP. BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. JANARDHAN REDDY, ADV.,) AND 1. SMT. R. MANJULA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS W/O SRI. H.C. GIRISH RESIDING NO.292/33 MANJUNATHA NILAYA PRASHANTHA NAGAR CHIKKABALLAPUR CITY CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT.
2. SRI. VINAYACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O SRI. LATE DEVADAS POOJARI R/AT JANKAR MANE BADAGAKHAJE KARU VILLAGE BANTWALA TALUK SOUTH KANARA DISTRICT D.K. (OWNER OF THE TEMPO BEARING NO.KA-19-B-4690) 3. THE MANAGER ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANZ INSURANCE CO. LTD., WHITES ROAD, CHENNAI-600 0014 (INSURER OF THE TEMPO BEARING NO.KA-19-B-4690) 4. SRI. JAISON M.S. S/O SRI. SUBASTIAN MADHERI HOUSE NELIYEDADI, PUTTUR TALUK D.K. DISTRICT.
(OWNER OF THE JEEP BEARING NO.KA-12-A-4579) ….RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.PRASANNA V.R., ADV. FPR R1 , SRI. K. SURYANARAYANA RAO, ADV. FOR R3, SRI. ARUNA SHAYAM M., ADV. FOR R4 R2 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:04.09.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.7961/2009 ON THE FILE OF 19TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND MACT, 41ST ACMM, BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.12,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
IN MFA 10818/2012 BETWEEN:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., PUTTUR DIVISIONAL OFFICE THROUGH REGIONAL OFFICE 5TH & 6TH FLOORS KRISHIBHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE BANGALORE-560 001.
REP. BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. JANARDHAN REDDY, ADV.,) AND 1. CHI NIKIL AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS S/O SRI. H.C. GIRISH RESIDING NO.292/33 MANJUNATHA NILAYA PRASHANTHA NAGAR CHIKKABALLAPUR CITY CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT. SINCE HE IS A MINOR HIS FATHER IS A NATURAL GUARDIAN SRI.H.C.GIRISH.
2. SRI. VINAYACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O SRI. LATE DEVADAS POOJARI R/AT JANKAR MANE BADAGAKHAJE KARU VILLAGE BANTWALA TALUK SOUTH KANARA DISTRICT D.K. (OWNER OF THE TEMPO BEARING NO.KA-19-B-4690) 3. THE MANAGER ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANZ INSURANCE CO. LTD., WHITES ROAD, CHENNAI-600 0014 (INSURER OF THE TEMPO BEARING NO.KA-19-B-4690) 4. SRI. JAISON M.S. S/O SRI. SUBASTIAN MADHERI HOUSE NELIYEDADI, PUTTUR TALUK D.K. DISTRICT.
(OWNER OF THE JEEP BEARING NO.KA-12-A-4579) ….RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.PRASANNA V.R., ADV. FPR R1 , SRI. K. SURYANARAYANA RAO, ADV. FOR R3, R2 & R4 ARE SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:04.09.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.7962/2009 ON THE FILE OF 19TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND MACT, 41ST ACMM, BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.3,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
THESE MFAs, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT These appeals are filed by the insurance company challenging the common judgment and award dated 4.9.2012 passed by the MACT, Bangalore (SCCH-17) in MVC Nos.7960, 7961 and 7962 of 2009 wherein the liability has been fastened on the appellant-insurance company.
2. Brief fact of the case:
On 31.12.2008, the mother of the petitioners in MVC 7960/2009 and petitioners in MVC 7961/2009 and 7962/2009 and their family friends were traveling in the train from Bangalore to Kukke Subramanya Temple. At Nettana Railway station they got down and boarded into the tourist jeep bearing No.KA-12-A-4579. When they were traveling in the said jeep, the driver of the said jeep drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Swaraj Mazda vehicle bearing NO.KA-19-B-4690 coming from opposite direction on the left side of the road. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to injuries and other petitioners sustained multiple injuries. Hence, the claimants filed three different claim petitions before the Tribunal. After appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants and fastened liability on the insurance company, namely, the United Insurance Co. Ltd. Being aggrieved by the fastening of liability, the insurance company has preferred these appeals.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company submits that the accident occurred on 1.1.2009 at about 7.00 a.m. and there was no insurance policy existing as on the date of accident.
The policy was taken on the same day at about 4.04 p.m. The insurance policy is marked as Ex.R-4 and 5. In the policy, it is made clear that the policy is valid from 00:00 hrs on 2.1.2009 to midnight on 1.1.2010. Hence, fastening of liability by the Tribunal on the appellant- insurance company is erroneous. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeals.
4. Per contra, Sri.K.Suryanarayana Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 submits that the charge sheet is filed against the driver of the jeep and the said vehicle was insured with the appellant-insurance company. The Tribunal while considering the negligence has taken note of the same and has rightly fastened the liability on the appellant- insurance company. Hence, respondent No.4 is a formal party to this appeal.
5. The claimants have not questioned the judgment and award of the Tribunal fastening liability on the appellant-insurance company. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants did not choose to appear before this Court. Hence, taken as no arguments.
6. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and also learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4, the short question that is involved in these appeals are:
a) Whether the Tribunal is justified in fastening liability on the insurance company, namely, United Insurance Co. Ltd. instead of the owner of the jeep and whether it requires interference of this court.
b) What order?
7. Having heard the parties and considering the materials on record, the Tribunal while passing the impugned judgment and award has come to the conclusion that the policy was not in force as on the date of the accident, since the accident had taken place on 1.1.2009 at 7.00 a.m. and the insured has approached the Divisional Office, Puttur at 4.04 p.m. on the same day and paid the premium and receipt was issued. Hence, no policy was subsisting as on the date of accident. In paragraph-21 of its judgment, it has categorically held that the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the claimants and the petition is deserved to be dismissed as against the appellant- insurance company. Inspite of the said finding, the Tribunal while passing the judgment has erroneously directed the appellant-insurance company to pay the compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal ought not to have directed the insurance company to indemnify the claimants. Hence, the judgment and award of the Tribunal insofar as fastening liability is concerned, requires to be modified.
8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER (i) The appeals are allowed.
(ii) The judgment and award of the Tribunal insofar as fastening liability on the insurance company, namely, the United Insurance Company Limited is set-aside.
(iii) The owner/insured of the jeep bearing Registration No.KA-12-A-4579 is directed to pay compensation to the claimants as awarded by the Tribunal.
(iv) The amount in deposit is ordered to be refunded to the appellant.
Sd/- JUDGE DM