IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT aANGAVIO:IiET_V
DATED THIS THE 3.9"' DAY OF OCTOBER_;2U£.fQ~
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AR 2§LIjj,
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAl,'N«O.763»2/$1069 V
cm: if I
MISCELLANEOUS4'Fl'RSTS;\§Pl§'EI5llS"lx.l§).7898/2009
IN MFA NO.76341/I2__OO9;~"" I I;
BETWEEN: _
IFFCO TOKIQ 't'3e:--:';r§1Vera'.'IrIS'L;:.'rarjl<':'e CO. Ltd.,
No.41,~CrE'S--tII":CorII:;:;E'ex""--_
II Flociir, L_avelleR_Oad . '
Bangalore' vs 01 V "
Now repre_Sented._i3yA§ts " '
Zonal Manager V ._
IFFCUTOKIO 'General "Insurance
1;.
- co; 'l";tci;.__,: BangalOre.._._.,7..0na| Office
"Smith, *KScIv1E Building, III Floor
'III"B.!Ock;*Cun'rI%ngham Road
Barjgéalvo re._560.G'S2
Appellant
(By "Sri;:uA,_ Krishnaswamy, Adv)
Smt.Lalitha @ Patil Lalitha @ Lalithavva
W/O Shankaragowda @
Shankaragowda Patil
Now aged about 24 years
R/a Benachimatti Village
.-'*-»~=..(""""""""---**""
{Q
Rona Tq. Gadag District
2. H L Nagesh
S/0 late Lakshminarayanapp
Age: Major
No.857, 15' D Main =
II Phase, Girinagar,
Bangalore ~ 85.
.'..-..AR"es['j-<V)n"<:fents
(By Sri.€\3 Gopala Krishna, Ady-'for."c_c,/ii:-a,_,
Sri.KEran S Java'ii----,._lT:x~dv -fori-R,2)~..__'»._
IN MFA NO.7898/20€'}ii_r... '
Sri.H L Nag-ash. _ ..
S/o iate "Svri..eAi,;axm"i3:;a.ra'y.anappa"-W
Aged about 6'4._~yeVa'i<s _ _*
Residing at No._'85.?«_ ' " __
1" 'D' M'a.i_n', 2"" PhasA'e,_ G1 riri'agar
Bangaiorea 560 0852 i
;' - _ _ " V' Appeliant
(85%:-Sriyuths:Kir'an,._s_.1avaii, S Vivekananda,
Chandf'a'sh'er!;ara K, Advs)
i*\NrDi:* At
1. Smt..L~aiitha @ Patii Lalitha @ Laiithavva
..W»,(o Sate Srishankaragowda @ Shankaragowda Patil
at T 2.3"years, residing at Benachimatti Viktage
Rana Taiuk, Gadag District
= By Sri.N Manjunath, Advocate
V. EFFCO TOKIO Generai Insurance Co. Ltd.
No.41, Cristu Compiex, 2"" F-"ioor, No.41
Laveile Road
Bangalore -- 560 001
~®°¢
3
By SrI:B T Rudramurthy, Adv M Qégpérahggnégg
These MFAS are filed under Section 173(1) of M.v'vAct
against the judgment and award dated 27.07.20G9"pa*ssed
in MVC No.3424/2008 on the fiie of XVI Additi;0na.l;J.u'd7g_e,x
Member, MACT, Bangaiore City awarding a C-.,oi'np.eVn'sa'ti0_'ni
of Rs.4,79,700/- with interest at 6% per anriujm from the -.1 "
date of petition tiil realisation. »
These MFAS are coming on 'for i'+ie'aring--
Court made the foiiowing:
common J'i3'DT_'GMENT'-_
Both from the same
Judgment passed in MVC
o'f"'t"i':'e'"iearned Member, MACT,
Bangaviore (hereinafter referred to as
'Claims Trii:..I.dIa1valg':fQr's_h0~rt). MFA No.7632/2009 is fiied by
ofuthe-----------car bearing registration No.KA 41 M
wa.s involved in the accident that occurred on
ogytotzocs.term E\3o.7898/2009 is fiied by the owner of
the"saiVdg_vehicie. The other vehicie invoived in the said
A acTc;i'dtent was motor cycie bearing registration i\io.KA 51 H
8793 which was driven by the dec%sed himself.
'Therefore, both these appeais are disposed of by this
common judgment.
mw
2. I have heard the arguments
Maheshwara, learned Counsel for the
No.7632/2009, Sri.S \/ivei<ananda., learnecl 'c§ps%:seVl'Ctro§;thre A '
appellant in MFA No.7898/2009
learned Counsel for the resporidentd"claim_ant_ in__:"botl*é the'-it
appeals.
3. At learned
Counsel for contends that the
appeal"ofthe;:tnsu3:"an'ceAV"Cornp'a~ny§ (MFA No.7632/2009) is
not reason that the Insurance
Company' not obtain«...leave of the Claims Tribunal under
of 't'hev..M.\.f' Act, 1988. The records disclose that
' thi'sV.apvp:el|'_'an:t' Insurance Company did not obtain leave of
the"l'CIainiVs'j__tribunal under Section 170 of the MV Act,
198"8, is settled law that if leave under Section 170 of
A Act is not obtained by the insurer, he cannot
'maintain the appeal challenging the cause of accident,
'being negligence of the driver of the Vehicle or the
quantum of compensation awarded by the Céairns Tribunal
W
in favour of the claimants. However, the owner of the
vehicle involved in the accident, being the .person
aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and
challenge its correctness. Therefore,
No.7'632/2009 filed by theVii1--sju'rer of thel..said'V":vVehic'le is'
liable to be dismissed...' as ,n'o'L=.",_:rnaV'i'n_tainabl'e, the other
appeal filed by vehicle is
maintainable.:,~:V' f if _ V
4. ileagrneld Counsel for the
appellantralélcolnteiynds that though two
vehicles' __cycle which was driven by the
deceasedVV'hi_mseEf'._and' said car were involved in the
sai_d-fiaccident,lti'i~e.,.CE_a,i~mant, the wife of the deceased, did
' not..cho_ose't,o"vproceed against the owner and insurer of the
motor therefore, the Claims Tribunal committed
serléoilsferror in fastening liability of paying entire amount
of'licomp'ensation to the respondent claimant in respect of
death of the deceased.
f%
6
5. Per Contra, Sri.N Gopaiakrishna, learned
Counsel for the respondent claimant strongiy contends’*–that
when two vehicles are involved in an accident,
a case of composite negiigence and in lthetu it
ciaimant would be at liberty to proceeld’
and insurer of either of the, two lveAh’ic|es
vehicies and therefore,’ by the
Ciaims TribunalLi’n_ eiiieiiegm,,gfii;i.¢i petition fiied
against the-‘ :t.he.,.car only and awarding
comperi’sati.on;T’in:’: ciaimant directing the
insurer”r_o’f:_the:’said .pay the entire amount of
com pensalti’-on to the ‘cl aima nt.
supnort of his above contention, Sri.N
Ai’–Gopaélkvrilsihyna,f-learned Counsei for the respondent claimant
has-._reii,ed the Division Bench decision of this Court in
:”i:he case “of National Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs Honnappa and
4′ =o’t:ia.e}s reported in ILR zoos KAR 959. In the said case
.._before the Division bench, a scooter and motor cycie were
invoiveci in the accident and the injured claimant was
‘»
7
riding the scooter and therefore, the claim petition was
filed under Section 163A of the MV Act, 1988 against the
owner and insurer of the mot-or”tcy,cie_,. _I:tC’was–.The’id
maintainable. Head Note and relevant portion ..o’i’.:'”p_aVr’a._
No.8 therein read as underzi
Motor Veh,–ic.|es Act, tfit98a__- SectionVE163(1) –
claim petition 4-“‘–Mai.ntainiabii’i”tvf5 Involvement of
two motor vehiciluesiifi AVcci.de’ntg.’;.i’,_’;njuries sustained
by the “c,Eaj’iman_t G’riAeva’n.c’e’:f’of the insurance
comp’an’T,r__V3».ci’aiman_t,*-.himseif being the cause for the
a__ccide.nt”,–1’whe’th_e~r:”ca’n:’flrnaihtain the petiton under
:.jVSecti_or:i.5’16_3:A’ ottrhne Act V–V-H Award of compensation –
c’ha”|ienVgeVVVto’v’:_={“H§_L’D,,:’when two motor vehicies were
invioivxed, iVn._4VtheV.::a’ccident due to which claimant
V’__'”sustainedgpinjuries in such a situation, the claim
p’etit’ia,n uri’d’é’t Section 163~A of the Act is
it ‘p-e_rmis.sVibie, no matter, the driver or the owner of
‘ involved in the accident, may dispute his
n.egiig”ence in the matter – Hence, the Tribunal, has
A, , “not committed any error in entertaining the petition
under Section 163-A of the Act — on FACTS
A FURTHER HELD, As the entitlement of the petitioner
has been considered and awarded on structured
formula basis in terms of Schedu|e–II of the Act, the
WW;