Karnataka High Court
United Iindia Insurance Company Limted vs Smt Sharadamma on 6 November, 2008
Equivalent citations: 2009 (2) AIR KANT HCR 305, 2009 A I H C 1587, (2009) 80 ALLINDCAS 434 (KAR), (2009) 4 ACC 252, (2009) 4 TAC 158, (2009) 2 KCCR 969
Author: N.K.Patil
Bench: N.K.Patil
IN THE. HIGH COURT OF KARNAT% AT BANGALGRE MP .A.No-l509 OF
200'? AND CONNECTED MATTERS
1
{N THE HKBH COURT OF KARNAYAKA AT j .
DATE!) THIS THE 61% mg? or xovmmns:g;"'§§c§£;§ _
BEFORE
THE Houme MR. JUSTi-§é N.K.mraL Q % 'V'!
mscmmnzous FIRST _ A
mscgnmnfiom Fmsw HQ; 507
mscmmrmom rmm mpmLv1sro.15m (3j1§__'W zoo?
BETWEEN:
amen' iiutzia Co!.u"r.>Aba§f EJMTED
c:iv:s%or4;xL'»or£:ce u0.xIm'193
Mé.NJU_NATHA CQMPLEXVZNG FE-.90?! cw Rom
!MD#RANAGAR B4Mf~£GALCRE _
map: av THE1sa:2meER%. Ree '--MAL omce
SHA_NKARA:~1ARAYANA.BU!LG3NG N025
M,<a.r=;om BA?4GA€.GRE'*1._ * '
_ _ _ V APPELLANT
~ . (By RE1§AJ:3eoPALA¢s,__A9vocATE;
=1. 1 S£:§ARAf3i§MMA
* . '-wro MLNVENKATARAMAPPA
AGED 28 was
" mar BHJALUR VILLAGE AND POST
' D£Vfi;blAHALL! re
' .. , % BAMEALORE RURAL me'? no
42- 'sate: G MO-HAN BABU
5:0 LATE swat GGPAL REGBY
I AGE MAJOR
mm' N0,B?f422
BELLANWJR VILLAGE mo mar
aausamae 37
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALGRE
200? AND CONNECTED MATTERS
% " tag 3;: a"a~,AjAeoPALAN ,ACiVOCATE~I )
IN THE ma;-1 comm or KARNATAKA AT SANGALORE M.?A.Nc.} 509 01?
"""""""'"""'""
2
3 THE NEW INDIA ASSURAMCJE CCJMPANY LTD
DWISIONAL OFFICE I NQAO
LAKSHMi CGMPLEX
OPP VANIWLASE HOSHTAL ,
BANGALORE 2
4 SHRI L KESHAV V
SIC) €»HR! §<.S.LAKSHMlNARAYANA
GANGAMMA TEMPLE STREET
KARIYANNA PALYA .
ST THOMAS TQVVN PO
BANGALGRE 84
V. _ } Rfispgudems
(By Sti : KR. SRINWASA pamvilirzomu, ;;'-s£)'.\fwE11{3A'fE~FOR R1;
R2 AND R4 -- seams; sRs.A.4<, an;-rr, Ao.~.rQcAq5.FjQR"a3 )
mas MFA? iS{;1iTFILED'~Uf£2_ 173(4_1)aQF new' ACT AGAINST THE
suoemem new .4A\'é!.ARD' «.UATED:13£)?120Q6 PASSED IN MVC
N0.5'i89!2003 on "sag-: F11;E.ot=----_1*HE'----w AQDL. sea 3. ADOL. JUDGE,
MEMBER MAC12. 'i\:!ET§'ROFQi;fiTAl~3 ~ AREA; BANGALORE, (seen- 2),
AWARDiN£3'6GMPE'N8Af;EGN cs R$.fi,6GCv'-' wrn-1 COSTS a. INTEREST @
7% PA. FROM 11;: ITS«{)EF'_O_€:'~4T.
BETWEEN:
~ agnuran £tNDiA"i'P4.$£1RANCE compmv umec
V. cz:v.ns::omL omcs NQXI NQ198
~ . 3 nsanawar-aa COMPLEX my noon CMH ROAD
~ !B4D:RAMAGAR--BANGALORE
REP. air we MANAGER REGIONAL ospuce
- A '=$HANKARAMARAYANA auamue No.25
M.e.ao.e;a_. aaneamne 1
. . . APPELLANT
' 1 ; $HRl RAMESHA
7 S10 MUNIYAPPA
AGED AQOUT 33 YRS
RIAT THYLAGERE VILLAGE
EN THE HIGH CGURT O? KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE M.F.A.N0.15{)9 GE
200'? AN?) CGNNQCTEB MATTERS
EN THE BIG COURT OF ATAKA A'? BANGALORE M.FANo.l 509 OF
AND:
200?' AND CONNECTED MATTERS
4
SHRI KUHAR
SIG JAYARAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
WAT B¥DALUR VILLAGE ANG PC3~ST
DEVANAHALU TO .
BANGALORE RURAL WST 113
SHRI G MGHAN BABU
S10 LATE sun; eom. RE-EDDY
AGE MAJOR
RIAT NO.87!422 _
BELLANBUR VILLAGE AND
BANGALGRE 37 --
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE GQMPA_N*¢'..l_JD "
DMSIONAL oFs=acEm~:>...4o
LAKSHMICOMPLEX _ « '
OPPVANIVILAS H9sPtm_. ' %
BANGALORE2 '
SHRILKEEMAV
310 sure: K,S.UxK$H&AiNAE?AYANA
KARNANNA:F'é\LYA" » 4
sT'TaoM5s'7Tcé¢rn _ - "
BfiNGfi.i.QF:E34':~-1" -- ---
* RESPGNDENTS
(By-Sr:-1 ; 9: 3 Sl§l§I¢V?§SA.?ATfiV1§kDHAN , ADVOCATE ma R1 ;)
Olfiii
'T:«4§s«..A.:J::#A~._u$3 FILED urs 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
Jummsm' £i§lD?' AWARE DATED:18I87i20B6
_ NO.5€48!23D3-GM THE F£LE OF THE VI ADDL. SCJ & ADDL. JUDGE,
gmemaasav 'MACT, METROPOLITAN AREA, BANGALORE, (SOC!-L 2),
,An*.:As:_naMé COMPENSATION OF RS.fi0.00G1~ WITH cosrs & INTEREST @
T " 'Isa 9.4;' mom 1210512005 am. as DEPOSIT.
: THESE MISCE:-KLANEQUS FIRST APPEALS comm on FOR
-4, "'PREL£MlflARY HEARING, ms war, we COURT QELWERED me
FQLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALGRE M.F.A.No. 1589 OF
209? AND CGNNECTE9 MA'I'§'ER.S
PASSED IN MVC
209? AND CONNECTEJ) MATTERS
5
JUDGMENT
Appeilant in all mesa appeals is Insurance Company Limited, remgggfited '* Being aggrieved by the cornmdfi dated 13*" July 2006 Md.dv;dc.dN%o»s.5?s912ao3, 5647/2003 and 564342003 éVAe.r2VVV:A'i:€r1e"--»..fjle.'6f*dihevfi Motor Accidents Claims (SCCH-2), common agpefldnt " the instant so far as it relates to fixing : United India Company at the 1fat§«'.of me award passed by the Clairr;3..Tribfi"r1dl, inedground that, there is no liability '.V$34Av:5V}"u«:°i 'E"E7§zr?f' 1%,. ' """ the goods carriage vehicle far passengers.
2. brief facts 3!' the case are that, the along with few others were traveiiing on 7*' in a tony maring No.KA-€}5IB--2889 in order to n the templa at Chita ni Road, Bangalore. But, IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE M.FZA.No.l509 OF 200? AND CGNNECIEB MATTERS IN THE HIGH COLERT OF KARNAT AT BAN LORE J3' .Nc:Ll 509 OF 2007 AND CONNECTED MATIERS 6 unfortunately, on the way, there was an accident involving the lorry in which the claimanm were travelling wiflm anather lorry bearing No.KA-05IAB--5999 from the opposite direction. Thus, as a accident, the claimants st1stain¢:i""ifij--urie$. _: . the claimants have filed the claim above on the file of the Motor A§cidems ctiassslgzfl-itsullal, Bangalore. The saiclhad up for consideration before Claims Tribunal'-(~'h.e'tif:§i"h£$-1+9! filaémis Tribunal' for brevity ) on 18$'-_'J:.§_ly' élaim petitions filed by the claimants alVl§3wee§l,'~~*l§xing the liability at the rate of thg céfhmbh appellant - lnsurance Company lnsurance Company to pay the said . anim_lnt,__v~ liberty was rwerved to appellant- Commny to recover the said amount from the ofthe lqrry bearing No.KA-VIOSIB-2889. IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE E 2607 AND CONNECTED MATTERS IN THE man coum' OF KARNAT AT BANGALORE M.F .A.2~io.i 599 03 2307 AND CONNECTEI) MATTERS 7
3. it is the further case of appeiiant that, were no iiabiiity at all on the insurance Company in A' goods mrriage vehicim for passengers. when there is no liability at ail, tfiexciaims L not to have fixed the liability on insurance Company and Company to t31ereafte:?::'_"~~.':gecq§i%i"VA fiiom the lorry owner. Th_erefo re_...:'tifiei.v'iinintifinnéiijiidgment and award pass-ge;'i.:v contrary to the well Apex Court and this Court 'therefore, appeiiant, being aggrigevegi inipiignéd judgment and award pamed '' V. by C'i§a~i:is3'_flTrit$iinéii only in so far as fixing the liability Company at the rate of 40% and _ tiaéreafter' iecover fire same from the ewner of the is .. consirainad to redrms its grievance by the instant Misceilanenus First Appeais. _____W___m__,,...» Eh' THE HEGH COURT OF KARNATMCA AT' BANGALGRE M; 260'? AND C{)NNEC'1'E§ MATTERS mama 2_o_q:::..a.N.;,,»
4. l have heard learned counsel appeatiVn§_"'»far appellant -- lnsurance Campany and learned respondents. All the claimants arenaerved;anva'ij$an§a'--area: "aw represented.
5. After careful _;'5f..l:l1e passed by the Claims Tribunall,..l.§E)f§at" the Claims Tribunal has at paragraph 24 of its judgment. for Insurance Company is in respect of the it my for the purpose of aenlcle has been used far transporting and lherefore, there is clear "'vi0latil:n»--."an"'t!je me owner. it has come in me Vlefiidentévlfizhai, claimants were travelling in the lorry in _ qu%l1onl.'_v'in-.la':ilier to visit me temple. Therefare me of tjye Insurance Comgny mnnot be When glare i§ violflon :_.)_f the tgrms §_r3___d IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALGRE 268'? AND CONNECTED MATTERS IN 1343 HIGH coum' OF KARNATAKA AT QALORE M.F.A.No.3 509 OF 2007 ms CONNECTED MATTERS 9 pay the comggnsation. Further, it is paragraph 25 of its judgment and award that, the law laid down, the lnsurancew Qompariyi '* wmpensatian at the first instanciep recover the same from tl1e'p'w,nerV"of'V:ti:g' No.KA-0513-2889. gtiinfif 'fl"1e'.._raasoning given by the 24, it emerges is tl1'_at.,Ltl.~i_e megs-clad a finding, iiairal' and documentary __ evidenciei 7Q'I'i& stand taken by the lnsuranae there is no liability on the insurance the very next paragraph, the V' "Clairng Tiribtjnal, reliance on the judgment of the '1l3i5Z}:Ve°x_"VC&7(il:ll'€.vél':-«£ufx' Court, has issued the direction that, _the "l-f3S1.l?a.i'2lEiEi Company has to pay its part of l H H 'T and then recover the same from the owner The said direction issued by the Claims J 'fiannot be aacepted nor the same is susminable for the IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE M.F.A.No.i599 OF 209? AND CONNECTEI) MATIERS IN THE HIGH couksr OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE M F.A.Ne.l 599 01? 209? AND CONNECTED mmxs no reason that, the Horfble Apex Court, in case of Afeffergei Insurance Company Limifed Vs. _ Subbhayamma and others: reported in mesa ?21g * he has heid flwat, " It is, therefore, fsaanffeet the amendment of 1994, '§h'e....Veffect'V:_ef A"':pI'evi:§ion " L' contained in Section 147 other than the owner nrfv authorized representative h the owner of the "rj;eQ,':%eeentative would now _h$ hgzh' A§i?':e__iL_i;r§.-'ance in rgsg of a goods §ehvide,V intention of the igisiature to gcvide. forhiiwevi Eiabilifv the irfiurer with regent to nail A ratuitous assen ers who were vv:§5er§ie.ijfie!ated at _ the time the contracf of H " _ insurame'w-as entered into nor an emium was id to fiédevfitv gf thejrgpefzt of the Insurance to such (emphasis supplied).
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE M4_ ' 290'? AND CONNECTED MATIERS IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE M.}"~'A.Ne.i 599 0? 2007 Am} comacmn MATTERS 11
7. Further, in one of iatest judgments of Court, in the case of National lnsurancg _ Limited Vs. Premadevi and others u " 'V Supreme Court Cases R403, fire} that, * The inevitable mien' fliwargi§féV.i'jV gfovisions of the Act do not 'ah htanhorym .f§liabimy' on the owner of a vehi"c§é--tt$-- insured for "irit: a h' any ' iiraveiiiv' 4' etszkriage and the ." (emphasis by the Apex Court attgrh' judge bench decision of the Supjrenté" {':§urt,'.= tdifhurs:
' _11. View gets support from a ' T of a three-judge bench of this '-- India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. 'Rhni in which it has been held that .. , Safpél Sing) Case was not correctly decided. 'That being the Qsition, the Tribunal and the % I-tim Court were not fustified in holding that am _/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARRNATAKA AT BANGALORE 2067 AND CONN£C"I'ED MATTERS that "
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE M.FANo.l509 OF 2007 AND QONNEC E E &'}"I'ER.S i2 award. " (emphasis supplied). Therefore, if the ratio of raw; by-irha Court, in the aforesaid _§udgmén_t_'$; inia consideration coupled with the Claims Tribunal at pafégrafltw "judgment and award, I am of the view taken to in the "a'%$?%i.._fi>§1erewafter recover the same yehicle, is oontrary to the well settiaéi iaifi the Apex Court and heme, _ Adug.!et~not to have been issued by the '-vfience, same is unsustainable and is mama, um», io be set aside at the threshold itself.
8. "E-,'-Qstiwer, it is significant to note that, in the terms " of the policy in respect cf goods carriage . it is stated in a crystal clwr manner that, there IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE Ma£A 2007 AND CQNNECTED MATTERS IN THE HIGH COURT Q? KARNAT% AT %GALQRE M.FA.No.i 509 OF 2997 AND CONNECTED MA'I"I'ERS :4 lorry. Thus, in View of the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court, it is held that, in respect of goods carfiage vehicles, the owner alone is liable and tl1.a*t,f~.tl*u=; lnsurance Company is not liable to respect af the gratuitous passengers. A A l
10. With this modificationl;'<.tl§_._.»fileé:l:
appellant stands disposed .._Thé anjtxtliit to 'V have been deposited ..Comf§ény"v before this Court is directw to amfiiedsately Sd/"'* Iudge IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE J.i 260'? AND CON'NEC'f'ED MA'§"I'E__!3.§