Karnataka High Court
Divisional Manager vs Mahadevaiah S/O Basavalingappa, on 19 March, 2020
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7282/2009 (MV)
BETWEEN:
DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO.9
#10/4, MITRA TOWERS, KASTURBA ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
REGIONAL OFFICE
SHANKARANARAYANA BUILDING
NO.25, M.G. ROAD
BANGALOARE-560 001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI: A.N. KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MAHADEVAIAH
S/O BASAVALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/O RENUKANAGARA
BASAVANAHALLI DHAKALE
NELAMANGALA TOWN
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
2
2. SMT. SHARADAMMA
W/O PAPANAYAK
MAJOR
PROPRIETOR OF ANITHA LAKSHMI MOTORS
TUMKUR, OLD BUS STAND
TUMKUR TOWN, TUMKUR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: J.M.UMESHA MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 -SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.02.2009 PASSED IN
MVC NO.5160 OF 2007 ON THE FILE OF THE XIV
ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER,
MACT, METROPOLITIAN AREA, BANGALORE,
(SCCH.NO.10), AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF
RS.10,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE
OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.
*****
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON
FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the judgment dated 04.02.2009 passed in MVC No.5160 of 2007 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru City (SCCH-
10), in partly allowing the claim petition, the Insurance 3 Company is in appeal seeking to set aside the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
2. The brief facts of the case are that, on 12.06.2007 at about 7.45 a.m., when the passengers were traveling in a bus bearing registration No.KA-06/D-3366, on Nelamangala-Doddaballapura road near Aralumallige road, within the limits of Doddaballapura rural police station, due to the rash and negligent driving of the said bus by the driver, an accident occurred, due to which, the inmates sustained grievous injuries. The Tribunal, considering the matter has awarded compensation which has not been challenged by the claimants.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company contends that the claim of the claimants has to be dismissed, since the vehicle which is the subject matter of the accident as covered by the Insurance Policy did not have a valid permit for the area, where the accident occurred. That is to say, that the 4 offending vehicle had no valid permit in order to ply at the place, where the accident occurred. Hence, on this ground, the learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company contends that the liability could not have been imposed on the Insurance Company and the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the said claim petition, due to violation of the Insurance Policy.
4. A perusal of the records would indicate that the vehicle is covered under a permit. The only aspect of the matter which has been raised by the Insurance Company is that, at the location where the accident occurred, there was no valid permit to ply.
5. The above matter is no longer res-integra. The Apex Court in the case of AMRIT PAUL SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS reported in (2018) 7 Supreme Court Cases 558, has held that plying of vehicle without a permit is a statutory infraction as also 5 breach of the insurance policy. In view of the same, the Apex Court has directed the Insurance Company to make payment of the compensation amount, however, permitting the Insurance Company to recover the same from the insured in accordance with law.
6. There was another appeal which arose out of the very same accident, which has been considered by this Court in the case of MANAGER Vs. JISHA @ NISHA AND ANOTHER passed in Miscellaneous First Appeal No.7284 of 2009, wherein, this Court has held that, the insurer was liable to discharge the award and recover the same from the owner of the bus/insured. This Court had also reduced the rate of interest from 8% to 6% in respect of the very same award.
7. I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that the decision of the Apex Court in Amruth Paul's case supra and by this Court in Miscellaneous First Appeal No.7284 of 2009, is applicable to this case also. The 6 appellant-insurer is directed to make payment of compensation amount awarded, however, permitting the insurer to recover the said amount from the insured in terms of the ruling of the Apex Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., Vs. CHALLA UPENDRA RAO reported in AIR 2004 SC 517.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
The amount in deposit is directed to be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal, for doing needful.
Sd/-
JUDGE *bgn/-