IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.NO.5096 OF 2013 (MV) BETWEEN:
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Mandya Branch Through its Regional Office 5th Floor, Krishi Bhavan Nrupathunga Road Bengaluru – 560 001 Reptd. By its Manager Mr. K.Chandrashekar (By Sri K.S.Lakshminarasappa, Advocate for Sri B.C.Seetharama Rao, Advocate) AND:
1. Sri N.S.Pashupathy Aged about 45 years S/o Shivalingegowda R/o Nagarakere village Maddur Taluk, Mandya District 2. Dr. N.S.Shanmugaraman Flat No.A-2, 2nd Floor Alamunanda Apartment Alamunagar, Coimbatore-641012 (Owner of Car No.TN-38/J-1300) ... Appellant 3. Sri N. Suryanarayana Reddy S/o Varadareddy, Major No.1/226, Indur village Tadapatri, Ananthapuram District (AP) (Owner of Lorry No.AP-02/P-5634) 4. The Divisional Manager The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Muslim Hostel Complex I Main, Saraswathipuram, Mysuru (Insurer of Lorry No.AP-02/P-5634) (By Sri M.Sowri Raju, Advocate for R4; R1 & R3 served-unrepresented & ... Respondents Service of notice to R2 held sufficient v/o/d 05.08.2015) This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and award dated 15.03.2013 passed in MVC No.02/2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, MACT, Maddur, awarding a compensation of Rs.15,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.
This MFA coming on for admission, this day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT The insurer is in appeal being aggrieved by the saddling of liability vide judgment and award dated 15.03.2013 in MVC.No.2/2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Maddur, Mandya District.
2. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation for the accidental injuries suffered by him in a road traffic accident. It is stated that on 26.07.2002, when the claimant and another were traveling in a car bearing Reg.No.TN-38/J-1300 from Mysuru to Maddur on Mysuru- Bengaluru road. The car was driven in rash and negligent manner in a high speed. At that time a lorry bearing Reg.No.AP-02/T-5634 was parked in the middle of the road without any indications. As a result the driver of the car dashed to the said lorry, which resulted in grievous injuries to the claimant. It is stated that after the accident, he was shifted to General Hospital, Maddur and thereafter he was shifted to NIMHANS Bengaluru for treatment. The claimant states that he was doing agriculture and tender coconut business and earning Rs.12,000/- per month.
3. The appellant was respondent No.2 before the Tribunal. On issuance of notice, respondent No.2 though appeared before the Tribunal, failed to file written statement. The respondent No.4-Oriental Insurance Company filed its written statement contending that the driver of the car and the driver of the lorry were not having valid and effective driving license.
4. The claimant examined himself as PW-1 and marked 5 documents as per Ex.P.1 to P.11. Respondent No.4 Oriental Insurance Company got marked Ex.R.1 on its behalf.
5. The Tribunal, based on the material available on record, awarded total compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the claimant for the personal injuries along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization saddling the liability on respondent No.2 United Insurance Company Limited. Aggrieved by the same, the second respondent-United India Insurance Company Limited is in appeal.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the materials placed on record.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal ought not to have saddled the liability on the appellant. It is his further submission that the appellant had filed the appeals against the judgment and award dated 30.11.2007 in MVC Nos.1648/2005, 1649/2005 and 1650/2005 which were against the same accident. In the said appeals, this Court by judgment dated 10.04.2014 has allowed the appeals filed by the United India Insurance Company. Relying upon the said decision, the counsel for the appellant prays for allowing the present appeal also.
8. On perusal of the records and the judgment passed in MFA No.2991/2008 and other connected matters, I am of the view that the said decision would not have application to the facts of the present appeal. Even though those appeals have arisen out of same accident, in the present case the claimant was passenger in Car bearing No.TN-38/J-1300, he had claimed compensation for the injuries suffered by him in the accident as 3rd party. This Court in MFA No.2991/2008 and connected matters had allowed the MFA in respect of Dr. Chandramouli, who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident and the liability was modified from 50% and 50% to 40% and 60%.
9. In the present appeal the appellant/insurer has not made out any ground to interfere with the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. The judgment and award of the Tribunal is neither perverse nor capricious to interfere. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected.
The amount in deposit, if any, be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal along with lower Court records, forthwith.
Kmv/-
SD/- JUDGE