Karnataka High Court
Sri Zameer Ahamed S/O Late K M A Rahaman vs Sri B R Narayana Shetty S/O Late B Ramaiah ... on 30 September, 2010
Bench: N.K.Patil, H.S.Kempanna
\\_P%
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
Dated this the 301" day of SeptemberL_:"2CI}1[{) " M
PRESENT «
THE HON'BLE MR. JU.s§TI¢E 'N. KQPATIL V' '
THE HON'BLE:"MR. .J::J's'1i:CE"H, s. KEMPANNA
MFA 1\f¢I :1 1é3:?:"9'
BETWEEN; *1.» '
Sri Zai;r1ee1'- Aheirr.-'ed"~ _ 2.
8/0 1at"t:¢K M A--Ra'h:amar;
Major in age» ' .
Prop: Sharrisheer R_ah*afi1'a'nia
N10tf11'"S_€I'\/'1C€"._' '
NQ~;1'.521; Old Post vOffice Road
. Appellant
~ Sri K Suryanarayana Rao, Advocate)
" A' Bangalore
}Rs.9,64,000/~ with interest at the rate of 6% pa. on
Sri B R Narayana Shetty
S/ o late B Ramaiah Shetty
Aged about 54 years
R/o No.868, H Cross
M G Road
Kolar Town A
United India insurance Co. Ltd}, A
Regional Office, No.25; _ '
Shankamarayana A
Buildings
M G Road
Bangalore -1
By its Regional L .. Ag Respondents
= ,4 Shetty, Advocate for R1;
Sri E3 C Seetharama Rao, Advocate for R2) . _ g is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act against th_el and award dated 3~9--2005 passed In MVC K _ Ne[2527/.2oo1 on the file of the Member, 5'"Add1t1onal MACT, A/Kayo Hall Unit, Court of Small Causes, Metropolitan Area, {SCCH--20), awarding a compensation %,tt/M-
Rs.9,44,000/-- from the date of petition till to petitioner towards compensation.
This MFA coming on'; for" .. hearing": _ fic1ayg~.__ N. K. PATIL J., delivered the fo11o:wing_t'i A. J U 13 T "
This appeal IS 'the »_\_/ehicle against the judgment and afuvard WC No;.£;'527/ 01 on the file of the V Causes, Metropolitan area (SCCH'--'20}= ii?-I Ha'1'1~_:Unit; Bangalore, (hereinafter called 'TribunAa1"'for'short]; . hg . it 'IheV'Trih1.1«I1a1 by its judgment and award, awarded ' aV'st1.In~.ofRs;§,64,O00--OO with interest at 6% from the date of petitionv ' tiljlf date of payment as against the claim of Rs.§0.,O'Q,O()xO--00 on account of injuries sustained by the .. ciairnant in a road accident and fastened the entire liability on 2' the owner of the offending Vehicle. Aggrieved by t_lri'e the owner of the vehicle has presented this appealj
3. The first respondent herein f_i.l~e-d, peltl1t«i.on»._A under Section 166 of the MV Act of----._ 4] Rs.20,OO,OOO--OO for the irguries sustained iroadljgaccident which occurred on 2l.O5.2()i)liVVl.:._lat _aboutl. on M.G. Road, near Trinity firstrelspondent was travelling in a bus as KA--O7--7788 from I-Ioskote to E_an}_I;aloref._the driverrpoi'-"the..said bus drove the same in a rash andvifieglligentpmanner which made the claimant to fall down on. the ro'ad"'aridl. hack wheel of the bus ran over the legs ofthe claimant, a result of which he sustained grievous 'Immediately he was shifted to Bowring Hospital and I LNR Orthopaedica and General Hospital.
He was treated for 255 days and both his legs were AA amputated. He was aged 50 years at the time of the accident. l' claimant was a General Merchant and Commission Agent _.;lby profession and was earning Rs.20,000~0O per month. Ail M m' '"""'Ww'n
4. The Tribunal considering the faeii 'U."_1:'c'rElV.V1.':..:',?L)w')'_t:.l.i"1-,'1L1'.1<3 legs of the claimant are amputate.d..__4the_'lj5ain..'and agonyu might have suffered and also the :factf_th~at doll' J the business as effectively ggbeforell after: ot'=tlie oral and documentary eViden_te-..on,record*,: the claim petition in part and 2-.§{»'ard'§§d s.:.a;.sfu::i'_:§:f.i,Rs.9,64.0oo--0o with interest at 6%, as contperihsationgéiforllthe sustained. The Tribunal iogffltlhellllivehicle was rash and negligent If for the accident, it fastened on the owner of the offending vehicle: ._'l4'herefore'ii..be_ing_naggrieved by the same, the owner of the;'offendingufvehielle is before this Court in this appeal " the saildlgiudgment and award of the Tribunal. ' Learned Counsel for the appellant. Sri. K. 'Su'ryana19afyaf1a Rao. at the out set submits that fastening the entire liability on the owner of the offending vehicle by the
2 AA'I'riE3unal cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set %WM aside. To substantiate his submission, he relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court"--.._in MFA No.6541/O3 C/Lu MFA 6052/O3 in the cas¢A..'c3fi'v"1\};:ij*I()NAL INSURANCE CO LTD., Vs. SMT. BHADRAMMA, "e-'oT§€ER'S,V wherein the judgment of the ApeX"Cou1*t__ oxf.,&M/3 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE co.. LTD "o.M;'tI'Ay"A,t in " J Am 2002 SC 651 has been-.r:eferred.V"t0_, wy1ie_r1"'states":that the liability of the insurer is striotl--yui.n:--aeeordanoewith the terms of the policy. The leamed' out that the insured had with the receipt as also the effect. Therefore he submitted that fastening the entireylliabilityfion the appellant/owner cannot be sustained and Ayisliablve to be set aside. 'V hltfithe contrary, the learned Counsel appearing for the sevoond' Arespondent--lnsurer, Sri. B.C. Seetharama Rao, Apcontenciled that the judgment passed by the Tribunal, fastening ltheiliability on the insured/owner is just and proper and the .V __;insurer is not liable %satisfy the award passed by the .dwM"_'W_'____,_,,..---
E Tribunal. Knowingly the appellant has not insured.th.§l1.iability before the expiry of the earlier policy period. default on the part of the insured, the fastened on to the insurer on that grouritl lthathc thlefi .:
premium and got the receipt: Meli=ellissua.nc"e_:
payment of premium does fasten the liability on the he "contended that interference bypthis Court" is
7. Aftelrv-careful ycoiisideration of the submission of the respé§CtiV_e. .the.._§n.1_y point that arise for consideration in this appeaiiis. V ""Whethei' fastening of entire liability on the _ "..owner of the vehicle is sustainable in law ?"
' 1 a matter of fact, the appellant has insured the 'paid the premium for which, he has been issued the receipt. As on the date of the accident the policy was /.
5:'///M in force. As pointed out by the learned Counsel th_i's~ had an occasion to consider the said questionybin "lcaE;ei'v.of NATIONAL INSURANCE co LTD.»,wV.s'. OTHERS. wherein it is held that-"a.,' ti?_1'_et~insured..l'hao:'f_alsovf--ipaidl" "
Premium. The insured hadissued la" effect 'and also the policy. Therefore was" the insurer can defer the assumptioln.Aof point of time other than from thedate a:.n'd'"tir:neV or the premium. This Court Court in SUNITHA 257 where it also lays dowrifl the.' .of law that the liability of the insurer wouildl the date of the policy and if any time "is. mentioned the policy, from that time the liability effective not earlier to that. The coverage of in-sufrarice" forya motor vehicle would Virtually stand on a different footing unlike in other types of contract of insurance. is it mandatory that the third party risk should be covered when a Vehicle has to ply in a public place. The insurance _eornpan.y being a State authority doing business of insurance is %..._.s-
X duty bound to honour and implement the provisio--:n_s.:pof_' law. Section 64(V)(b) declares that the insurer only upon the receipt of premiurn, ..May be',"that'.f1nV"other of contracts where insurance is s:ougif'1t,A.the».1n'su'rer riiajf-jhave it the discretion to enter into a'c'o.n.tract~.o'r not.Vbvifiutv.inmrespect.iOf Motor Vehicles there is no disc:retion--con the Insurer. The appellant has to into and issue policy in accordance Witheiaw, if It further held that in the legal situation, it is to be held of71ns§urance in respect of motor vehicles. the -poiicy becomes effective when pI'6II1iL1II'1=._i'Su received... insurer cannot postpone the assurnption .Vof»1iab'i11ityV'after receipt of premium. The necessary . ., ofvehicle and the documents should be done before V' However under the said pretext the insurer_»'canfnot postpone the assumption of risk, other than from the :date and time of receipt of premium. ribs {ii} [iii] The judgment and award of the Tribunal passed in MVC No.2527/01 on the file of V Addl.MACT, Court of Small Causes, Metropolitan.' 20] Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore,"'hereby.'set in so far as it relates Mtobllfasvteniriig. appellant-ownerof V The liability is on respondent~ insurancet satisfy the judgment the Tribunal, as " asl'._'po'ssible, at any rate within a from the date of receipt of the it , hcopy of AtI'.1is*..-iudgrnent and Award. M (iv) Th-e_y statutory amount deposited by the appellant "shall be refunded to the appellant immediately. * iv;
jurisdictional Tribunal is also directed to refund the amount that is deposited by the appellant by Virtue of the interim order dated 1 _,,M_w~/-~*_""""""
5
10.02.2006 immediately after the d€pGSft" by the second respondent--insuran.ce « "
Office to draw the awafd A
l' ' '. I'
3hdg°
r Judge