Maruti S/O Shankarappa Hallikhed vs Nirmala W/O Late Tukaram on 26 August, 2014

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Maruti S/O Shankarappa Hallikhed vs Nirmala W/O Late Tukaram on 26 August, 2014

Bench: Ravi Malimath

                                1



          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                    GULBARGA BENCH

           ON THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2014

                          BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH

                M.F.A.No.30081/2013 (MV)

BETWEEN

MARUTI
S/O SHANKARAPPA HALLIKHED
AGE : 37 YEARS,
OCC: OWNER AND DRIVER OF VEHICLE,
R/O MANNAEKALLI, TQ. HUMNABAD,
DIST. BIDAR-585201
                                           ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI. S. V. PARADDY, ADV.)

AND

1.    NIRMALA W/O LATE TUKARAM
      AGE : 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD

2.    POOJA D/O TUKARAM
      AGE : 08 YEARS,

3.    PAVAN S/O TUKARAM
      AGE : 06 YEARS,

4.    PREETIBAI D/O TUKARAM
      AGE : 04 YEARS,

      RESPONDENTS NOS. 2-4 ARE MINORS
      THEY ARE REPRESENTED BY
      RESPONDENT NO.1 WHO IS
      THEIR NATURAL MOTHER,
                             2




     ALL ARE R/O KHENI RAJOL,
     TQ. HUMANABAD, DIST. BIDAR,
     NOW R/O CHANDAPUR,
     TQ. CHINHCOLI,
     DIST. GULBARGA-585305.

5.   THE BRANCH MANAGER
     NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.
     SANGAMESHWAR COLONY,
     S.B.TEMPLE ROAD, GULBARGA
                                          ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SANJEEVKUMAR C. PATIL, ADV. FOR R1
SRI. S.S. ASPALLI, ADV. FOR R5
R2 -R4 ARE MINORS & REPTD BY R1)

      THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24/11/2012 PASSED IN MVC
NO.15/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
CHINCHOLLI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT.


     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                      JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the judgment and award of the Tribunal granting compensation to the claimants, but however foisting the liability on the owner to satisfy the award, the owner has filed the present appeal. 3

2. Learned counsel for the appellant - owner contends that the case made out against him is that he has violated the permit condition to run the vehicle. The permit has been produced at Ex.R2. The same would show that the vehicle should ply within the limits of Mannaekalli village. However, the accident occurred outside the permit limitation. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal wrongly held that the owner violated the permit condition and therefore the insurer was absolved of its liability to satisfy the award.

3. In support of his case he relies on the judgment reported in ILR 2000 KAR 1302 in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others vs Chandamma and Others.

4. Heard learned counsel for the insurer as well as the claimants.

5. The Hon'ble Division Bench in the aforesaid judgment held that whatever breach of the permit condition, such a plea is not permissible under sub- section (2) of Section 149 of the Act. Following the said judgment it is apparent that so far as foisting the liability on the owner is concerned it is unsustainable. Consequently, the appeal is allowed.

6. The award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent of absolving the appellant - owner to satisfy the award.

7. Respondent - Insurance Company is held liable to satisfy the award. The award shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and same shall be paid within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Sd/-

JUDGE sdu

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court