Karnataka High Court
CIVIL APPEAL 20868 of 2009 on 6 December 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S. SANJAY GOWDA
BETWEEN
M.F.A.No.20868/2009 (MV)
*JUBEDA BEGUM W/O. LATE N. SULTANSAB
MAJOR, MUSLIM, OCC: OWNER OF TOYOTA QUALIS NO.KA-22/MA-5656, R/O TELEPHONE QUARTERS, VIJAYANAGAR COLLEGE, HOSPET, DIST: BALLARI.
(BY SRI PRAVEEN P. TARIKAR, ADV. & SRI RAVIKUMAR ASSOCIATES )
..... APPELLANT
AND
1.SRI KRISHNA NAIK S/O PEERA NAIK, LORRY CLEANER, KALLAHALLI, TQ HOSPET, DIST: BALLARI.
2.THE MANAGER, BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 2[ND] FLOOR, BILIG PLAZA, COLLEGE ROAD, BELGAUM.
..... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADV. FOR R-1 SRI M.K. SOUDAGAR, ADV. FOR R-2)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:6/12/2008 PASSED IN MVC NO.1229/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-VII AT HOSPET, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
Sd/-
Judge
*Corrected v.c.o.dt.04.04.2022
RS.1,08,000/- WITH THE INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Page 1 of 3
JUDGMENT
The appeal is by the owner of the vehicle challenging the liability fastened on her by the Tribunal for a sum of Rs.1,08,000/- awarded for the injuries sustained by the claimant.
2. The facts giving rise to filing of the claim petition were that on 13.07.2007, a Toyota Qualis owned by the appellant had met with an accident with an unknown vehicle, as a result of which, the inmates of the vehicle sustained injuries. The first respondent was one such injured. The first respondent therein filed an application seeking for compensation for the injuries that she had sustained in the accident.
3. The second respondent insurance company contested the proceedings. It was its principal contention that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver and therefore it was not liable. It was also stated that the second respondent owner had not paid the additional premium for coverage of the risk of all the passengers. Therefore it could not be saddled with the liability, if any.
4. The Tribunal, on consideration of the material placed before it proceeded to determine the compensation at Rs.1,08,000/-. However, the Tribunal exonerated the insurance company on the ground that no additional premium had been collected by the insurance company for covering the gratuitous passengers in the vehicle.
5. The other findings recorded by the Tribunal may not be related to the facts of this case since the only contention of the owner was that the vehicle was insured with the insurance company and she should be indemnified of the liability having regard to the fact that the vehicle in question was covered by a package policy.
6. Learned counsel for the insurance company would still however contend that the inmates of the vehicle were fare paying passengers and therefore the insurance company could not be made liable though the policy in question is a package policy.
7. It is not in dispute that the claimant was an occupant of the vehicle which was a passenger car.
Page 2 of 3
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Vs. Balakrishnan and anotherreported in 2013 ACJ 199 has categorically laid down that in respect of a package policy the liability of the insurance company would be for all the occupants in the vehicle. In the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the award made by the Tribunal will have to be satisfied by the insurance company since in the instant case, the vehicle was covered under a package policy.
9. In view of the above, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the same is allowed insofar as it relates to exonerating the liability of the insurance company and saddling the owner with the liability. It is hereby held that the insurance company would be liable to pay the compensation of Rs.1,08,000/- awarded to the claimant in M.V.C.No.1299/2007.
10. The amount which is deposited by the owner in this appeal shall be refunded to the appellant.
Sd/- JUDGE
Naa
NSSGJ:04.04.2022
M.F.A.No.20868/2009
-ORDER ON IA1/2021
As requested, the name of the appellant is corrected to read as ‘Jubeda Begum w/o late N. Sultansab’ instead of ‘Jubeeda Begam S.Raj w/o Suntal’.
Accordingly, IA-1/2021 is allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Jm/-
Page 3 of 3
Loading citations and judicial treatment…