Karnataka High Court
Veerendra S/O Narsappa Kollur vs Shivashanker S/O Ramanna Baki And Anr on 19 April, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
MFA No.31531/2013 (MV)
BETWEEN:
VEERENDRA
S/O NARSAPPA KOLLUR
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER
R/O NIRNA VILLAGE
TQ. HUMNABAD
DIST. BIDAR
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI SANJEEVKUMAR C. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHIVASHANKER
S/O RAMANNA BAKI
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/O NIRNA VILLAGE
TQ. HUMNABAD
DIST. BIDAR
2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
9-2-24/5, FIRST FLOOR
MAIN ROAD, BIDAR
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVANAND PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 SERVED)
2
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MV ACT PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD Dated 09.04.2013
PASSED IN MVC OLD No.74/2009, NEW No.58/2011 ON
THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT AT
HUMNABAD.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 21.03.2022, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) is filed by the claimant aggrieved by the judgment dated 09.04.2013 passed in MVC (Old) No.74/2009 (New) No.58/2011 by the Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, at Humnabad.
3
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Claims Tribunal. The appellant is the petitioner and respondents are the respondents before the claims Tribunal.
3. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 20.03.2008 at about 4.00 p.m., the petitioner was driving the tractor bearing registration No.KA39/T-2555 and Trailer bearing registration No.KA-39/T-2556 and was proceeding from Muttangi village to Nirna village and when he came near Muttangi bus stand, he suddenly applied brake which resulted in accident and the trailer toppled down to the right side of the road and the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner suffered permanent disability and spent huge amount for his treatment.
4
3.1. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 163-A of the Act seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident.
3.2. Respondents filed written statement denying the averments made in the petition and denied the nature of accident, the injuries sustained by the petitioner, age, avocation, income and medical expenses incurred by the petitioner. The respondent No.2 filed the written statement contending that the petitioner was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of the policy and violated the permit condition. It was further contended that the respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. Hence, sought for dismissal of the petition.
5
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded evidence. The petitioner in order to prove his case, examined himself as P.W.1 and in order to prove the disability, examined the doctor as P.W.2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. In rebuttal, the respondents have not lead any evidence. The Tribunal after recording the evidence and considering the material on record dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimant. The claimant aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal filed this appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in dismissing the claim petition. He further submits that 6 the premium was paid to cover the risk of the owner- cum-driver. Admittedly, the petitioner is the driver. The Insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner and further held that the claim petition filed by the petitioner under section 163-A is maintainable. He further submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in passing the impugned judgment and award and prayed to allow the appeal.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2, Insurance Company supports the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. He further submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. Hence, sought for dismissal of the appeal.
8. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 7
9. The point that arise for consideration is with regard to liability.
10. Admittedly, the petitioner has sustained accidental injuries when the tractor and trailer of which he was a driver, met with an accident. Section 163-A of the Act is a self contained code which was introduced as a social security measure. A bare reading of section 163-A of the Act would indicate that the owner of the motor vehicle of the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay compensation in case of death or permanent disability due to the accident arising out of use of motor vehicle. Hence, in a claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Act, there is no requirement for claimant to plead and establish the negligence and the claim petition is filed on the principle of 'no fault liability' as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramkhiladi and Another vs. The United India Insurance Company and 8 Another reported in (2020)2 SCC 550. The claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act was filed against the owner and insurer of the tractor and trailer of which the petitioner was driver of the vehicle. Since the compensation is claimed under 'no fault liability'. However, the Tribunal has erroneously dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the accident occurred solely due to negligence on the part of petitioner. Hence, the same is contrary to the mandate of Section 163-A of the Act. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal dismissing the claim petition requires to be set aside and is accordingly set aside.
11. There is no dispute in regard to Tractor and trailer was insured with the respondent No.2. There was a contract between first respondent and second respondent and the first respondent paid the premium of insurance policy. As per the insurance policy, 9 respondent No.2 is liable to indemnify the first respondent. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramkhiladi supra, the petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-.
12. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The appeal is allowed in part.
The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC Old No.74/2009, New No.58/2011 dated 09.04.2013 is set aside. The petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization.
Respondent No.2, Insurance
Company is directed to deposit the
compensation amount along with interest, 10 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
The Tribunal is directed to release the compensation amount with interest in favour of the petitioners.
Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records.
Sd/-
JUDGE VNR