Karnataka High Court
Sri. Venkatesh vs Iffco Tokio Gen-Insurance Co. Ltd on 22 April, 2022
Author: P.S. Dinesh Kumar
Bench: P.S. Dinesh Kumar
M.F.A No.967/2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G. UMA
M.F.A. No.967 OF 2017 (MV-D)
BETWEEN :
SRI. VENKATESH
S/O LATE GIRIYAPPA
MAJOR
GOLLARADODDI VILLAGE
LAKSHMIPURA POST
KOOTAGAL HOBLI
RAMANAGARA TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT-562 159 ... APPELLANT
(BY SHRI. G.V. DAYANAND, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1. IFFCO TOKIO GEN-INSURANCE
CO. LTD., REGD. OFFICE
IFFCO SADAN
C1, DUST-CENTRE SAKET
NEW DELHI-110 017
IFFCO TOKIO GEN-INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
#1586, OPP. BEO OFFICE
1ST K.R. ROAD, VIDYANAGAR
MANDYA -571 400
REP. BY ITS MANAGER
2. SMT. INDIRAMMA
W/O LATE KRISHNAGOWDA
AGED 45 YEARS
M.F.A No.967/2017
2
3. SRI. DILIP
S/O LATE KRISHNAGOWDA
AGED 25 YEARS
4. SMT. DIVYASHREE
S/O LATE KRISHNAGOWDA
AGED 20 YEARS
ALL R/AT
PATEL NARASEGOWDA VATARA
KUMBALAGUDU VILLAGE
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE ZILLA-560 074.
ALL ARE PERMANENT
R/O. KUPPEGALA, VARUNA HOBLI
MYSORE TALUK
MYSORE DIST.-570 001. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R1
[THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE];
SHRI. H.V. MANJUNATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2-R4)
....
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.10.2016 PASSED IN MVC
NO.4511/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XIX
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, & XLI ACMM, MACT,
BENGALURU,(SCCH-17), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
Rs.8,87,472/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
THIS MFA, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 04.03.2022 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR J, PRONOUNCED
THE FOLLOWING:-
M.F.A No.967/2017
3
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the owner of the offending vehicle challenging the judgment and award dated October 27, 2016 in MVC No.4511/2015 passed by the MACT, Bengaluru1 (SCCH-17).
2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred as per their status in the Tribunal.
3. We have heard Shri. G.V. Dayanand, learned Advocate for the owner of the offending vehicle, Shri. E.I. Sanmathi, learned Advocate for the Insurer and Shri. H.V. Manjunatha, learned Advocate for the claimants.
4. Brief facts of the case are, on August 17, 2015, first claimant's husband Krishnegowda was crossing Bangalore - Mysore Road. A bus owned by the appellant, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed 1 'Tribunal' for short M.F.A No.967/2017 4 against Krishnegowda causing grievous injuries. He died on way to the Hospital.
5. Claimants presented the instant claim petition contending inter alia that Krishnegowda was working as a Security Guard and earning Rs.12,000/- per month. On consideration of the material on record, Tribunal has awarded Rs.8,87,472/- payable with interest at 9% p.a. and absolved the insurer from its liability. Feeling aggrieved, the owner of the offending vehicle has filed this appeal.
6. Shri.Dayanand, for the owner of the bus contended that the Tribunal has erred in absolving the insurer on the premise that the bus was plying beyond the area permitted by the Transport Authority. The Tribunal has held that the bus was plying in violation of permit condition and absolved the insurer. He urged that the reasoning of the Tribunal is untenable because, the bus had permit to ply in a particular route and violation M.F.A No.967/2017 5 of route condition cannot be construed as a case of 'No permit'. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on Durugamma Vs. S.G. Naresh and others2.
7. Shri. Sanmathi, for the insurer submitted that admittedly, the bus was plying on the road which was not permitted by the Transport Authority. Therefore, it amounts to having 'No permit'. As per Section 149(2)(a)(i)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the insurer can avoid his liability in a case of violation of permit condition. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal filed by the owner of the bus.
8. We have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records.
9. Undisputed facts of the case are, the Transport Authority had permitted plying of the bus from Bangalore to Chamarajanagara via Sunkadakatte, Tavarekere, Allambella, Ramanagara, Channapatna, 2 M.F.A. No.1201/2011 decided on 07.11.2016 M.F.A No.967/2017 6 Bewoor, Kestur, Maddur, K.M.Doddi, Malavalli, Poorgali, T.N.Pura, Mullur, Kollegala, Mamballi, Yelendra and Mangala. It is not in dispute that accident has taken place on Bangalore-Mysore Road opposite the Grama Panchayath Office, Kumbalagudu village.
10. The Regional Transport Officer, R.W.2 has stated in his evidence that the bus did not have permit to ply on Bangalore-Mysore Road via Kengeri and Kumbalagudu Road. The owner of the vehicle has admitted in his cross-examination that the bus was plying from Bengaluru to Ramanagara via Kumbalagudu. He has also admitted that he had no other permit than Ex.R3. Thus, it is clear that the bus did not have permit to ply on Bengaluru - Ramangara Road via Kumbalagudu and to put it simply, there was no permit to ply the bus at the spot of accident. Based on evidence on record, the Tribunal has rightly absolved the insurer and directed the owner of the offending vehicle to satisfy the award. The judgment of the Tribunal is in consonance with M.F.A No.967/2017 7 National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Challa Bharathamma and others3.
11. In view of the law laid down by Apex Court in Challa Bharathamma, in our view, the authorities in Durugamma Vs. S.G. Naresh and others2; and Mangamma and others Vs. Iffco Tokio Genera Insurance Co., Ltd., and another4 do not lend any support to appellant's case.
12. Resultantly, this appeal must fail and it is accordingly dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE SPS 3 2004 AIR SCW 5301 4 2017 ACJ 650