Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

The Divisional Manager vs Annasab Satappa Mayannavar on 24 January, 2023

Author: Ravi V.Hosmani

Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani

                            -1-




                                   MFA No. 102082 of 2014


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

         DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

                         BEFORE
          THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102082 OF 2014 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:

1.    THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
      THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
      DIVISIONAL OFFICE RAMDEV GALLI,
      BELGAUM,
      REP: BY THE DEPUTY MANAGER,
      NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
      REGIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR
      ARIHANT PLAZA,
      KESUGAL ROAD, KESHWAPUR,HUBLI.



                                            ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. M.K.SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.    ANNASAB SATAPPA MAYANNAVAR
      AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
      R/O: HIREKODI,
      TALUK: CHIKKODI,
      DIST: BELGAUM.

2.    IBRAHIM NASARUDDIN JAMADAR
      AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
      R/O: A/P, TALUK: RAIBAG,
      DIST: BELGAUM.


      MALLAPPA SHIVAPPA BELLAD
                             -2-




                                     MFA No. 102082 of 2014


3.   AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
     R/O: KABBUR, TALUK: CHIKKODI,
     DIST: BELGAUM.

     SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
     RESPONDENT NOS. 4 TO 5.

4.   SHIVALING MALLAPPA BELLAD
     AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
     R/O: KABBUR, TALUK: HUKKERI,
     DIST: BELGAUM.

5.   MURAGESH MALLAPPA BELLAD
     AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
     R/O: KABBUR, TALUK: HUKKERI,
     DIST: BELGAUM.

6.   SADASHIV MALLAPPA BELLAD
     AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
     R/O: KABBUR, TALUK: HUKKERI,
     DIST: BELGAUM.

7.   THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
     NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.,
     CLUB ROAD, BELGUAM.



                                          ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SANTOSH S.HATTIKATAGI, ADV. FOR R1
R2 HELD SUFFICIENT.
R3 TO R7 NOTICE DISPOESNED WITH)
     THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES
ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
28.04.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.439/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-III, BELGAUM
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.50,500/- ALONG WITH
INTEREST @9% PA. FROM DATE OF PETITION TILL
REALISATION.
                                -3-




                                       MFA No. 102082 of 2014


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

                            JUDGMENT

Challenging judgment and award dated 28.04.2014 passed by Presiding Officer, FTC-III Court, Belgaum, in MVC No.439/2011, this appeal is filed.

2. Brief facts as stated are that in an accident that occurred on 02.02.2008, Tata Ace bearing temporary registration no.KA-22/3196 sustained damages when it met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of driver of tractor bearing registration no.CNL-4005 and trailor bearing registration no.KA-32/T-3721 by its rider.

3. Alleging loss of damages to vehicle, he filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act.

-4-

MFA No. 102082 of 2014

4. On service of summons, insurer opposed claim petition denying averments made therein.

5. Thereafter, Tribunal framed issues and examined two witnesses as PW1 and PW2. Exhibits P1 to P12 were marked. In rebuttal, insurer examined one witness as RW1 and got marked insurance policy and certificate of insurance as Exhibit R1 and R2 respectively.

6. Sri. M.K.Soudagar, learned counsel for appellant insurer submits that sole ground on which impugned award is challenged was that insured vehicle namely, Tata Ace Goods vehicle bearing temporary registration no.KA-22/3196 issued with Insurance policy - Exs.R1 and R2 wherein insurer had restricted its liability insofar as damages to Rs.6,000/- and as claim petition was only in respect of damages to vehicle, assessment of liability in excess of said limit by -5- MFA No. 102082 of 2014 tribunal was unjustified. Therefore, sought for modification of award.

7. Sri. Santosh S.Hattikatagi, learned counsel for respondent no.1-owner - claimant sought to support award. It was submitted that tribunal had apportioned negligence between appellant-insurer and insurer of other vehicle to extent of 50% each and as quantum of compensation was meager, sought for dismissal of appeal.

8. Notice to Respondent no.2 is served and he is unrepresented. Notices to respondents no.3 to 7 have been dispensed with. With consent of learned counsel for parties, appeal is taken up for disposal.

9. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment and award and record.

-6-

MFA No. 102082 of 2014

10. From above submission, occurrence of accident involving two vehicles and insured vehicle namely, Tata Ace Goods vehicle bearing temporary registration no.KA-22/3196 is not in dispute. Vehicle sustained damages and claim petition filed before tribunal was allowed in part wherein compensation of Rs.50,500/- is assessed with interest at 9% p.a. Tribunal has apportioned liability of insurer of both vehicles to extent of 50%. Same is also not in challenge. Only ground of challenge is on basis of limit set in insurance policy. Therefore, point that arises for consideration is:

"Whether tribunal was justified in holding insurer liable to pay more than Rs.6,000/- ignoring condition in Exs.R1 and R2 -insurance policy?"

11. Claim insofar as vehicle damages is under a contract. Perusal of Ex.R1 - Insurance policy would indicate that insofar as third party property -7- MFA No. 102082 of 2014 damage, no premium is paid. As per IMT 20, insurer would be liable to pay compensation of maximum of Rs.6,000/-. Insurer has taken specific contention in this regard. Tribunal has not referred to same in award. Hence, imposition of liability of appellant-insurer in excess of Rs.6,000/- would be perverse. Therefore, point for consideration is answered partly in affirmative.

12. Consequently, following:

ORDER i. Insurer's Appeal is allowed.
ii. Impugned award holding insurer liable to pay 50% of award amount is set aside.
iii. Appellant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- with interest.
iv. Amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to tribunal for payment.
v. Balance if any to be paid within six weeks.
-8- MFA No. 102082 of 2014
vi. If there deposit is in excess, excess amount to be refunded.
SD JUDGE VMB