Karnataka High Court
The Branch Manager, The Oriental ... vs Parubai W/O Balu Chavan Jors on 27 September, 2012
Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar
Bench: D V Shylendra Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
Dated this the 27th day of September, 2012
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D V SHYLENDRA KUMAR
Misc.First Appeal No.30712 of 2011 (MV)
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD
BIDARI COMPLEX
S.S.FRONT ROAD
BIJAPUR
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PREETI S MELKUNDHI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. PARUBAI
W/O BALU CHAVAN
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: H.H.WORK
2. SANTOSH BALU CHAVAN
Age: 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
3. SANDEEP BALU CHAVAN
AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
2
4. KAVITA D/O BALU CHAVAN
AGE: 11 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
5. SAGAR BALU CHAVAN
AGE: 7 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
6. SACHIN BALU CHAVAN
AGE: 6, OCC: STUDENT
7. VISHAL BALU CHAVAN
AGE: 4 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
(RES NO.2 TO 7, HEREIN ARE MINORS
U/G RESP NO.1 HEREIN)
8. MOTABAI W/O DESU CHAVAN
AGE: 61 YEARS
OCC: H.H.WORK
9. DESU BHIMU CHAVAN
AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: NIL
ALL ARE R/O ITTANGIHAL LT
IN BIJAPUR TALUK
10.PRABHU
GIRIMALLA HAWALDAR
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O C/O: B.R.NANDIGOL,
SHASTRI NAGAR,
TORVI ROAD
BIJAPUR
OWNER OF T/T
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BAPUGOUDA SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE
FOR R1 TO R9, R10 SD)
3
THIS MFA FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 06.10.2010 PASSED IN
MVC NO. 10/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL - II AT BIJAPUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION AND AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF
RS. 4,72,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Appeal by the insurance company questioning the judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.II at Bijapur, dated 6th October 2010 in MVC No.10/2010, making the insurance company liable to pay compensation amount at a sum of Rs.4,72,000/- in the first instance and permitting the insurance company to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle, a vehicle insured with the appellant-insurance company owned by the first respondent and driven by the driver engaged by the first respondent causing an accident on 28.11.2009, which resulted in the death of one Balu Chawan, who was 4 the breadwinner of the respondents-claimants, is not in dispute.
2. The Tribunal while quantified the amount of Rs.4,72,000/- accepted the stand of the insurance company that as on the date of the accident, the driver was not holding an effective valid driving licence to drive the transport vehicle; that driving licence to drive a tractor with trailer had been valid in favour of the driver from 13.03.2000 to 12.03.2003 whereas on the date of the accident the licence held by the driver was only a valid driving licence to drive LMV (Non Transport) which was valid from 5.4.1999 to 31.5.2014 and therefore the insurance company can claim that it is not liable but nevertheless purporting to follow the judgment of this Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., v. M.R.SHANTAMMA AND OTHERS reported in 2008 (3) KAR R 119 directed to the insurance company to pay 5 compensation and recover the amount from the insured etc.
3. It is being aggrieved by this direction the present appeal by the insurance company.
4. Several contentions are urged and it is also submitted by the learned counsel for the insurance company that the law in this regard has undergone change and places reliance on the judgment in the case of ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD v. K.C.SUBRAMANYAM in MFA No.2596/2007 and also on another judgment in the case of ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD v. k.SHIVARAO AND ANOTHER reported in 2010 KANT MAC 346 (KANT).
5. The appeal by the insurance company and the fact that the insurance company had some business transactions with the insured, is not in dispute. As between the third party injured claimant, who is ignorant, 6 illiterate and appellant-insurance company which is well endorsed with resources, has competent legal advisers and a very effective infrastructure, it is definitely easier for the appellant-insurance company to recover the amount from the respondent-claimant than for the respondent to execute the award as against the owner to realize the amount.
6. Therefore I do not find any need or justification to interfere with the direction of the Tribunal to the insurance company to first pay the amount and then recover amount from the insured later, having regard to the object for which Chapter-XI has been introduced in the Motor Vehicles Act 1988.
7. No ground is found to consider grievance of the insurance company. The insurance company to pay the amount first and recover it from its customer. Therefore this appeal is dismissed.
7
8. The amount in deposit before this Court is directed to be transferred to the Tribunal forthwith and the appellant-insurance company to make good the balance amount if any, as per this judgment and award by depositing the same as directed by the Tribunal within six weeks from toady and the claimants permitted to draw the amount as per the award of the Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE sdu