Karnataka High Court
New India Assurance Co. Ltd., By Its ... vs Kotrappa S/O Kariyappa Koppad on 9 December, 2021
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9 T H DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
M.F.A.No.21592/2012 (MV)
BETWEEN:
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BY ITS DIVISIONA L MANAGER,
A.M.ARACAD E, C.G.HOS PITAL ROAD ,
DAVANGERE, HEREIN REP.BY
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE,
MOTOR THIRD PARTY HUB OFFICE,
SRINATH COM PLEX, 2 N D FLOOR,
HUBBALLI-580 029,
REP. BY ASST. MANAGER.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAVINDRA R MANE, ADV OCATE)
AND
1. SRI KOTRAPPA ,
S/O KARIYAPPA K OPPAD,
AGE: 66 YEARS ,
OCC: RETIRED AS ST.DIRECTOR OF
AGRICULTURE AND PROPRI ETOR OF
MALLIKARJUN A UTOMOBILES SALES
AND SERVICE CEN TER, HAVERI ,
R/O: HAV ERI.
2. HONNAPPA S/ O FA KKIRAPPA HALLA LLI,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: BUSINESS A ND AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KODA VILLAGE,
2
TALUK: HIREKERUR,
DIST: HAVERI,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
2A. SMT.RATNAWWA,
W/O HONNAPPA HALLALLI ,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
2B) SRI BIRAPPA ,
S/O HONNAPPA HA LLALLI ,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
2C) SRI MALLIKARJUN ,
S/O HONNAPPA HA LLALLI ,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
2D) SMT.RENUKA,
D/O HONNAPPA HA LLALLI ,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
ALL ARE R/ O: K OD A VILLA GE,
TALUK: HIREKERUR,
DISTRICT: HAVERI .
... RES PONDENTS
(BY SRI MADANMOHAN M.KHANNUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI G.N .NARASA MMANAVAR, ADVOCATE F OR
SRI LOKESH MALAVALLI, ADVOCAT E FOR R2 (A-D)
THIS MISC.FIRST APPEAL IS FI LED UNDER SECTION
173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES A CT, 1988, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND A WARD DATED 04.02.2012 PA SSED IN MVC
NO.498/ 2006 ON THE FILE OF ADDL.SENI OR CIVIL JUDGE
AND ADDL.M.A.C.T., RANEBENNUR, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.1,70,000/- WITH INTEREST A T THE
RATE OF 6% P.A . FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS
REALIZATION .
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMI SSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT , D ELIV ERED THE F OLLOW ING:
3
JUDGMENT
Challenging the judgment and award dated 04.02.2012 passed by Addl.Senior Civil Judge and Addl.M.A.C.T., Ranebennur (for short, 'tribunal') in MVC No.498/2006, this appeal is filed.
2. Though this appeal is listed for admission, with consent of learned counsel for parties, it is taken up for final disposal.
3. Sri Ravindra R.Mane, learned counsel for appellant-insurer submits that challenge to impugned award is on the sole ground that as per claimants' case and police investigation records, accident occurred on 14.11.2005 at 9.45 p.m. wherein car bearing registration no.KA-27/M-386 met with an accident with HMT Tractor bearing chassis no.40961 wherein claimant sustained grievous injuries. Claiming compensation for same, claimant filed claim petition against owner and insurer of tractor under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'M.V.Act'). 4
4. Appellant-insurer opposed claim petition on the ground that vehicle was not covered by insurance policy on date of accident. Tribunal held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of tractor by its driver, assessed compensation of Rs.1,70,000/- in favour of claimant and held respondents no.1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay same. It was submitted that claimants themselves produced insurance cover note at Ex.P6. Copy of same was also marked as Ex.R2 and copy of insurance policy was marked as Ex.R3 indicated that liability of insurer would begin from 3.35 p.m. on 15.11.2005, but accident had occurred on the previous day i.e. on 14.11.2005 at 9.45 p.m. Without verification of policy tribunal had held that policy tribunal was valid as on date of accident and fastened liability against appellant-insurer. It was submitted that as there was no coverage on the date of accident, liability of insurer is required to be discharged.
5
5. On the other hand, Sri Madanmohan M.Khannur, learned counsel for claimant-respondent no.1 and Sri G.N.Narasammanavar, advocate appearing for Sri Lokesh Malavalli, learned counsel for respondents no.2(a) to 2(d) supported the award and opposed insurer's appeal.
6. As challenge is on limited ground, I have carefully perused Ex.P6, Ex.R2 and R3. It is without any doubt that insurance policy was issued on 15.11.2005. As per Ex.P1, accident occurred on 14.11.2005 at 21.45 hours and FIR was registered on 15.11.2005 at 1.00 a.m. As insurer had not issued insurance policy on the date of accident, insurer cannot be held liable. To the said extent, impugned award requires to be modified.
7. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER i. Appeal filed by appellant-insurer is allowed.6
ii. Liability held by tribunal on appellant-
insurer is set aside.
iii. Amount in deposit is ordered to be refunded to the appellant.
iv. It is clarified that claimant would be entitled to proceed against owner.
Sd/-
JUDGE CLK