Karnataka High Court
Sri Raja Lingaiah vs Sri Manju @ Manja on 11 July, 2014
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF JULY 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANANDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4490 OF 2013
C/W MFA.CROB.NO.144 OF 2013 (MV)
MFA NO.4490/2013
BETWEEN:
SRI.RAJA LINGAIAH
S/O LATE NINGAIAH
AGE: 60 YEARS
R/A D.NO.1217/1218
(MYLARALINGESHWARA HOTEL)
GANESHA TEMPLE STREET
HUNSUR TOWN
MYSORE DIST. - 562 101 ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.SIDDAMALLAPPA P.M., ADV.)
AND:
1. SRI.MANJU @ MANJA
S/O GOVINDEGOWDA
AGE: 40 YEARS
R/A MYDANAHALLY VILLAGE
BELAVADI POST
ELEWALA HOBLI
MYSORE TALUK & DIST. 562 101
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE
CO. LTD., JLB ROAD
CHAMUNDIPURAM
MYSORE - 562 101 ... RESPONDENTS
2
(SRI.S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, ADV. FOR R1
SRI.K.N.SRINIVASA, ADV. FOR R2)
---
This MFA is filed under section 173(1) of Motor
Vehicles Act against the judgment and award dated
20.3.2013 passed in MVC No.938/2012 on the file of
the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-II, MACT,
Mysore, awarding compensation of `2,53,800/- with
interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the
deposit except on the amount awarded towards loss of
future earnings.
MFA.CROB.NO.144/2013
BETWEEN:
SRI.MANJU @ MANJA
S/O GOVINDEGOWDA
AGE: 41 YEARS
R/A MYDANAHALLY VILLAGE
BELAVADI POST, ELWALA HOBLI
MYSORE TALUK 562 101 ... CROSS OBJECTOR
(BY SRI.KRISHNA KUMAR S.R., ADV.)
AND:
1. SRI.RAJA LINGAIAH
S/O LATE NIGAIAH
AGE: 61 YEARS
R/A D.NO.1217/1218
(MYLARALINGESHWARA HOTEL)
GANESHA TEMPLE STREET
HUNSUR TOWN
MYSORE DIST. - 562 101
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE
CO. LTD., JLB ROAD
CHAMUNDIPURAM
MYSORE - 562 101 ... RESPONDENTS
---
3
This MFA.Crob in MFA No.4490/2013 is filed
under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC r/w Section 173(1) of
Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and award
dated 20.3.13 passed in MVC No.938/12 on the file of
the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-II, MACT,
Mysore partly allowing the claim petition for
compensation and seeking enhancement of
compensation.
This appeal and cross objection coming on for
Final Hearing this day, the Court delivered the
following:-
JUDGMENT
The insured has filed this appeal to set aside the impugned award / reduce the compensation. The claimant has filed the cross-objection for enhancement of compensation.
2. The Tribunal has saddled the liability on the insured by holding that as on the date of accident, the insured vehicle did not have registration certificate. Therefore, the insured should not have plied the vehicle on the road. In view of breach of terms and conditions of the policy committed by the insured, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. 4
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned judgment and copy of the insurance certificate.
4. The insurance certificate was issued on 7.3.2012 to be effective from 7.3.2012 to 6.3.2013. When the insurance certificate was issued, the vehicle had temporary registration certificate for a period of one month and the registration certificate expired on 30.4.2012. The accident took place on 5.6.2012. Thus, on the date of accident, the registration certificate expired. However, the insurance certificate was in force. The Insurance Company, while issuing the certificate of insurance, was aware that insured vehicle had registration certificate for only a period of 30 days. If it was intention of the Insurance Company to cover risk of the vehicle during the currency of registration certificate, the Insurance Company should have issued the policy covering the risk of the vehicle till the date of expiry of registration certificate. It should have been specifically stated in the certificate that certificate of 5 insurance policy would be effective as long as registration certificate is current. The Insurance Company having received premium of `14,625/- for the period from 7.3.2012 to 6.3.2013, cannot contend that it is not liable to pay compensation, more particularly when the claim is made by a third party. The Insurance Company has not filed the appeal because liability was saddled on the insured.
5. The learned counsel for Insurance Company would submit that claimant was also guilty of contributory negligence because he had suddenly swerved his TVS moped to his right hand side without looking for the vehicles plying on road. The Insurance Company cannot be permitted to raise this contention in the appeal filed by insured.
6. Therefore, in order to safeguard the interest of claimant and also the insured and insurer, I deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the Tribunal with a direction to Insurance Company to deposit a sum 6 `2,00,000/- with the Tribunal and the Tribunal shall deposit the same in the name of the claimant for a period of six months in Fixed Deposit in any nationalised bank authorizing the claimant to draw the periodical interest. This arrangement would be subject to final result of the case.
7. In the result, I pass the following ORDER The appeal filed by the insured is accepted. The cross-objection filed by the claimant does not survive for consideration for the present.
The impugned award is set aside. The Tribunal shall re-consider the matter after hearing the parties. The Insurance Company is directed to take part in the proceedings after depositing a sum of `2,00,000/- with the Tribunal, which the Tribunal inturn shall deposit in the name of the claimant for a period of six months in Fixed Deposit in any nationalised bank authorizing the claimant to draw the periodical interest. This 7 arrangement would be subject to final result of the claim petition.
Parties are at liberty to adduce further evidence. The Tribunal shall decide the claim petition on merits within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment and parties shall extend co-operation.
The amount deposited by the appellant shall be refunded to him.
Sd/-
JUDGE RV