Karnataka High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs Sri. N Siddaiah S/O Bundegowda ... on 3 April, 2013
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA
M.F.A.NO.9791/2010 (MVC)
BETWEEN:
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
NO.144, SHUBHARAM COMPLEX
M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE
REPRESENTING NATIONAL
INSURANCE CO., MYSORE
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI R JAIPRAKASH, ADV.)
AND:
1. SRI N SIDDAIAH
S/O BUNDEGOWDA NANJEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
SECRETARY (MILK PRODUCERS CO. OP.
SOCIETY) BASAVANAHALLY
BANNR HOBLI,
T NARASIPURA TALUK
2. SRI J N RAMESH
S/O J NARAYANARAO
MAJOR, NO.112, MIG-II STAGE
KUVEMPUNAGAR, MYSORE
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI G B MANJUNATHA, ADV. FOR R-1)
MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.06.2010 PASSED IN
MVC NO.9/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE
(SR.DN) AND MACT, T.NARASIPURA, AWARDING A
COMPENSATION OF Rs.1,95,380/- WITH INTEREST @ 6%
- 2 -
P.A. ON Rs.1,80,380/- (FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES OF
Rs.15,000/- DOES NOT CARRY ANY INTEREST) FROM THE
DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The Insurance Company has filed this appeal to set aside the impugned award as it relates to fastening liability on Insurance Company inter alia contending that insured vehicle did not have permit to ply on road where accident took place.
2. Heard Sri R.Jaiprakash, learned Counsel for Insurance Company and Sri G.B.Manjunatha, learned Counsel for claimant.
3. The vehicle involved in accident is a passenger carrying auto rickshaw. The accident took place at 2.30 p.m. on 22.6.2005 on T.Narasipura - Bannur main road near Santhemala.
- 3 -
4. The insured vehicle (auto rickshaw) had permit to ply within limits of Mysore City Corporation and accident had taken place at a distance of 30 kms. away from Mysore City. The claimant was a third party.
5. Sri R.Jaiprakash, learned Counsel relying on the judgment of Supreme Court reported in 2004 ACJ 2094 (in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Challa Bharathamma) would submit that violation of permit condition is one of the defences available to Insurance Company under Section 149(2) of M.V.Act.
In the aforestated case, insured vehicle had plied without there being a permit. Therefore, the Supreme Court has held that plying of a vehicle without permit is a defence available to the Insurance Company under Section 149(2) of the M.V.Act.
6. The learned Counsel for Insurance Company relies on a judgment of Supreme Court reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5237 (in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Anjana Shyam) to contend that infraction of
- 4 -
permit condition is a ground for Insurance Company to avoid its liability.
In the aforestated case, the stage carriage was overloaded and number of passengers exceeded permitted capacity. The Supreme Court has held that liability of Insurance Company is limited to number of passengers authorized to be carried in vehicle.
7. The learned Counsel for claimant relying on a Division Bench judgment reported in 2000(2) KLJ 462 (in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Chandamma) would submit that mere violation of permit condition either by deviating route condition or by stopping at a place contrary to terms of permit cannot be a ground for Insurance Company to avoid its liability.
In the aforestated judgment, the Division Bench of this Court following the earlier judgment of this Court in the case of K.V.Thimmegowda vs. Kamalamma reported in ILR 1991 KAR 4127 has held:
- 5 -
"Therefore, in law the
appellants/petitioners-insurers are not
exempt from their liability to pay
compensation under their respective 'Act Policies' by mere reason of 'contract carriages' in question being plied as 'stage carriages' in breach of their permit condition since such a defence plea is not permissible under sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Act."
8. Under Section 149(2)(i)(c) of the Act, the Insurance Company can defend the action, if vehicle is used for a purpose not allowed by permit, where the vehicle is a transport vehicle.
9. In the case on hand, the insured had permit to ply the auto rickshaw. However, he had violated the route conditions of permit. Therefore, it cannot be said that vehicle was used for a purpose not allowed by permit. The tribunal was justified in awarding compensation to claimant. There are no grounds to interfere with impugned award. The appeal is
- 6 -
dismissed. The amount deposited by the Insurance Company shall be transferred to the tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE nas.