Back
Karnataka High Court
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Appellant
Versus
ULLASINI N.KAMBLE - Respondent
Decided On : 03-27-01
M.F.A. : 203 of 1989
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939 - SECTION 96(2)(B) - INSURANCE - LIABILITY OF INSURER - CONDITION EXCLUDING DRIVING BY A NAMED PERSON OR PERSONS OR BY ANY PERSON WHO IS NOT DULY LICENSED - BREACH OF CONDITION - MEANING OF 'BREACH' - INSURED OWNER NOT KNOWING OR CONSENTING TO VEHICLE BEING DRIVEN BY UNLICENSED PERSON - NO BREACH OF CONDITION - INSURER LIABLE TO PAY COMPENSATION.
Fact of the Case:
Deceased Dr. Kamble was crossing the road when respondent No. 2, D.V. Chandrashekar, in a vehicle insured by appellant No. 2, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., hit him, causing his death. The tribunal found that the accident was caused by the negligence of respondent No. 2 and contributory negligence of the deceased to the extent of 25%. It awarded compensation of Rs. 3,50,250 to the claimants, with interest at 9% per annum. The insurance company appealed, contending that it was not liable to pay compensation as the vehicle was being driven by a person holding only a learner's license, which was not a valid driving license. The owner of the vehicle also appealed, contending that he was not liable to pay compensation as he had not consented to the vehicle being driven by an unlicensed person. The claimants filed a cross-appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation and interest.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the insurance company was liable to pay compensation as there was no breach of condition by the insured owner. The court found that the owner of the vehicle was not aware that the vehicle was being driven by an unlicensed person and had not consented to it. Therefore, the court held that the insurance company could not escape its liability under Section 96(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The court also held that the tribunal erred in finding that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The court found that there was no evidence to support this finding and that the accident was solely caused by the negligence of the driver of the vehicle. Therefore, the court enhanced the compensation awarded to the claimants to Rs. 9,00,000, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of application to the date of payment.
Issues: 1. Whether the insurance company was liable to pay compensation when the vehicle was being driven by a person holding only a learner's license? 2. Whether the owner of the vehicle was liable to pay compensation when he had not consented to the vehicle being driven by an unlicensed person? 3. Whether the tribunal erred in finding that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the insurance company was liable to pay compensation as there was no breach of condition by the insured owner. The court found that the owner of the vehicle was not aware that the vehicle was being driven by an unlicensed person and had not consented to it. Therefore, the court held that the insurance company could not escape its liability under Section 96(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. 2. The court held that the owner of the vehicle was not liable to pay compensation as he had not consented to the vehicle being driven by an unlicensed person. The court found that the owner of the vehicle was not aware that the vehicle was being driven by an unlicensed person and had not consented to it. Therefore, the court held that the owner of the vehicle was not liable to pay compensation. 3. The court held that the tribunal erred in finding that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The court found that there was no evidence to support this finding and that the accident was solely caused by the negligence of the driver of the vehicle. Therefore, the court enhanced the compensation awarded to the claimants.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals filed by the insurance company and the owner of the vehicle. The court allowed the cross-appeal filed by the claimants and enhanced the compensation awarded to them to Rs. 9,00,000, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of application to the date of payment.
( 1 ) THESE appeals arise out of common judgment and award delivered by motor accidents claims tribunal No. 10, Bangalore city, in m. v. c. Case No. 1222 of 1986. The tribunal by award dated 9. 8. 88, has assessed the compensation in total to be Rs. 4,47,000 and awarded it to the extent of Rs. 3,50,250 with interest at 9 per cent per annum. The tribunal opined that accident in question did take place on account of no doubt, negligence of the driver of the vehicle tvs 50 bearing registration No. Aaq 920, but there was contributory negligence of the deceased to the extent of 25 per cent in the causing of or in the taking place of accident, and as such, it held that petitioners claimants are entitled to a total sum of Rs. 3,50,250, as compensation from the respondents before, with reference to 75 per cent negligence of rider/driver of vehicle and as such awarded the same with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the said amount. M. f. a. No. 203 of 1989, has been filed by the insurer, while appeal m. f. a. No. 2597 of 1988, has been filed byd. V. Chandrashekarthe rider of the vehicle and insurer and the appeal bearing m. f. a. No. 716 of 1989, has been filed by the owner of the vehicle and the claimants-petitioners have filed cross-appeal/cross-objections in appeal m. f. a. No. 2597 of 1988. That as all these appeals and cross-appeal do arise from the common judgment and award and arise out of one and same motor vehicle accident these are disposed of herewith by the one and the common judgment.
( 2 ) THE facts of the case in nutshell are that on 13. 8. 1986, at about 5. 25 p. m. , Dr. N. d. Kamble, who was working as the head of the social services management unit in the institute of social and economic change, Bangalore, was crossing the road near vasanta vihar from south to north. According to claimants' case, at that time, the vehicle tvs 50 bearing registration No. Aaq 920, driven by respondent No. 2, in the claim petition, i. e. , D. V. Chandrashekar, it was drizzling when he was riding the vehicle, and it came and dashed against Dr. N. d. Kamble aforesaid. That as a result thereof Dr. Kamble fell down on the road and sustained head injuries. He was shifted to victoria hospital, but he was declared dead and the matter was reported to the chickpet police station and investigations were taken. According to the claimants' case, Dr. N. d. Kamble was a highly qualified person having got many degrees to his credit. He was awarded three doctorate degrees by three different universities for his research papers on economics, political science and anthropology. He was also the master of arts and graduate in law. At the time of accident he was working as the head of social services management unit in the institute for social and economic change, Bangalore and his gross salary was Rs. 4,359. 65 per month. He was also a visiting professor to various universities in India and abroad, and according to claimants, he was getting average income of Rs. 6,000 to Rs. 8,000 per month. According to claimants, Dr. Kamble was contributing his entire salary to the family and on account of sudden death of Dr. Kamble, the family suffered loss, to a greater extent including, of consortium and of fatherly guidance and affection to his children. The case of the claimants has been that the deceased was only bread-earner and was free from bad habits. At the time of accident, he was aged about 45 years. According to petitioners' case, the petitioner No. 1 spent a sum of Rs. 10,000 towards funeral and other ceremonies. The claimants claimed compensation in total to the tune of Rs. 8,10,000, under various heads.
( 3 ) NOTICES were issued by the claims tribunal to the respondents and they appeared and filed their separate written statements: that it was admitted that respondent No. 2 (before the tribunal) D. V. Chandrashekar was driving the vehicle tvs 50, at the time of accident and that n. k. Dutta, present respondent No. 4 (i
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
