Karnataka High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Sri Johar Bin Shariff on 26 March, 2013
Author: B.S.Indrakala
Bench: B.S. Indrakala
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.S. INDRAKALA
M.F.A.No. 4063/2009 (MV)
BETWEEN:
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Vishnu Prakash,
Court Road,
Regional Office, No.44/45,
Leo Shopping Complex,
Residency Road,
Bangalore-25, Rep. By its Manager. ... Appellant
( By Sri. K.N. Srinivasa, Advocate)
AND:
1. Sri. Johar Bin Shariff,
Aged About 26 years,
R/at Abinandhana, Salikere,
Brahamavara, Udupi Taluk.
2. Sri. Santhosh Kumar Hegde,
Bin D. Diwakar Hegde,
Aged About 43 years,
R/at House No.183, 12th Cross,
2nd Phase, J.P. Nagar,
Bangalore. ...Respondents
(R-1 served, R2- H/S)
2
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of M.V. Act
against the Judgment and Award dated. 17.02.2009,
passed in MVC No.1119/2007 on the file of Principal Civil
Judge (Sr. Dn.) and Member, MACT, Udupi, Awarding a
Compensation of Rs.18,000/- with Interest a 8% P.A. from
the Date of Petition Till Deposit.
This MFA coming on for Hearing this day, the Court
delivered the following: -
JUDGMENT
The respondent/insurance company in MVC No.1119/2007 on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge, Sr. Dvn. And Addl. MACT, Udupi has preferred the above appeal against the judgment dated 17.2.2009 interalia contending amongst other contentions that the claimant was a pillion rider and as such under the policy, which is said to be an act policy, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle.
2. On perusal of the policy marked as Ex.R.1, it is seen that apart from the basic premium, an additional sum of Rs.80/- is also collected under the caption, "extra 3 loading". Admittedly, the vehicle involved is a Kinetic Honda scooter and as such, the question of having any extra loading to the said vehicle does not arise and if at all, if the said amount is collected towards additional fixtures to the vehicle, the same would have been mentioned under the said heading. In the circumstances, the observations made by the tribunal at paragraph 12 of the judgment that the said extra amount of Rs.80/- collected is towards the coverage of the pillion rider, will have to be accepted.
3. In the foregoing circumstances, though policy is captioned, 'liability only policy', as the contents and also the collection of premium is on par with a package policy, it cannot be said that the appellant/insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority has clarified by passing a letter dated 16.11.2009 to all the Insurance Companies about liability of the insurer to indemnify the owner of the vehicle with regard to its 4 liability in relation to the pillion rider in case of two wheelers and has referred to Circular No.MOT/GEN/10 dated 2nd June 1986 and has further stated that the said circular makes it clear that insured's liability in respect of pillion rider carried on two wheeler is covered under the Standard Motor Package Policy. Thus, the impugned judgment with regard to fastening of the liability is well- founded and the same does not call for any interference.
Accordingly, the above appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE brn