Karnataka High Court
The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Smt Siddamma W/O Late Sri Manikappa on 13 August, 2014
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
GULBARGA BENCH
ON THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
M.F.A. NO. 6894/2007 (MV)
BETWEEN
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
GULBARGA
BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE
2-B UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE,
MISSION ROAD,
BANGALORE 27
REP. BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SUDARSHAN M. ADV)
AND
1. SMT SIDDAMMA
W/O LATE SRI MANIKAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YRS
OCC: COOLIE
2. KUM. MAREMMA
D/O LATE SRI MANIKAPPA
AGED ABOUT 16 YRS
3. MALLAPPA
S/O LATE SRI MANIKAPPA
AGED ABOUT 12 YRS
2
4. MALLAMMA
D/O LATE SRI MANIKAPPA
AGED ABOUT 7 YRS
5. SRIDEVI
D/O LATE SRI MANIKAPPA
AGED ABOUT 5 YRS
PETITIONER NO. 2 TO 5 ARE MINORS
U/G OF THEIR NATURAL MOTHER
PETITIONER NO.1 SMT. SIDDAMMA
ALL RESIDENTS OF RAICHUR
6. SRI CHANDRAPPA KOLI
S/O SRI KALAPPA
AGED MAJOR
OCC DRIVER CUM OWNER
OF MINI DOOR TEMPO
R/AT CHINGANOOR
TALUK : YADGIR
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MALLIKARJUNA C. BASAREDDY, ADV. FOR R1
R2 -R5 ARE MINORS REPTD BY R1
NOTICE TO R6 HELD SUFFICEINT)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 17/04/2007 PASSED IN MVC
NO.612/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER,
MEMBER MACT, (FAST TRACK COURT-II), RAICHUR, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.1,96,000/- WITH COST & INTEREST @ 6%
P.A.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal awarding compensation in favour of the claimants against the owner but directing the insurer first to pay and then to recover it from the owner, the insurer has filed the present appeal.
2. The Tribunal on considering the evidence on record held that the owner is liable to satisfy the award and the insurer was absolved of its liability to satisfy the claim. However, the insurer was directed to deposit the compensation along with interest and costs and thereafter to recover the same from the 1st respondent - owner of the vehicle.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that this is the only question of law for consideration in this appeal. He submits that since the liability is not foisted on the insurer, there is no question of the insurer satisfying the award. Hence, he submits that the appeal 4 be allowed by modifying the direction given to him to pay and recover.
4. On hearing learned counsels, I' am of the considered view that there is no merit in this appeal. Considering the very question with regard to the liability of the insurer to pay and recover from the owner of the vehicle, even though the liability of the insurer was absolved, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment in the case of National Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Baljit Kaur and others reported in 2004 ACJ 428 answered the said issue therein. The Hon'ble Supreme Court therein, having taken into consideration the judgment in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani, 2003 ACJ 1(SC) as well as Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, held that the upshot of the aforementioned discussions is that the insurer be directed to satisfy the awarded amount in favour of the claimant if not already satisfied and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that for the purpose of such 5 recovery, it would not be necessary for the insurer to file a separate suit but it may initiate a proceeding before the executing Court as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was the subject matter of determination before the Tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer.
5. Under these circumstances, the insurer should first make payment and thereafter recover the same from the owner. Therefore, the contention of the appellant cannot be accepted since it is opposed to the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court squarely covers the question of law raised by the appellant. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.
The amount in deposit be transmitted to the Tribunal for necessary orders.
Sd/-
JUDGE sdu