Back
2019 Supreme(Kar) 651
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
P.G.M. Patil, J.
Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Jettappa – Respondent
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 100166 of 2015, Cross Objection No. 100082 of 2015
Decided On : 02-07-2019
Advocate Appeared:
G.N. Raichur, B. Shaffiulla, G.N. Narasammanavar, S.K. Kayakmath.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the apportionment of liability between insurers in cases of composite negligence or liability, and the determination of compensation in accordance with the II schedule under the MV Act.
Headnote:
Liability Apportionment - Motor Vehicle Accident - Section 163-A of MV Act - 50:50 - Compensation awarded in excess of II schedule
Fact of the Case:
The claimant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sustained grievous injuries, seeking compensation under Section 163-A of the MV Act. The tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 2,89,100/- with interest at 7% p.a. from the date of the petition till realization, holding respondent Nos. 1 to 3 liable and dismissing the petition against respondent Nos. 4 to 6.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the liability to pay compensation between respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and respondent Nos. 4 to 6 is fixed in the ratio of 50:50. The compensation awarded by the tribunal was adjusted, and the claimant was awarded compensation of Rs. 2,29,100/- with interest at 6% from the date of the petition till its realization.
Issues: The key issue was whether the liability should be apportioned between the insurers and whether the compensation awarded by the tribunal was in excess of the II schedule under the MV Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in cases of composite negligence or liability, the claimant can proceed against any one of the insurers to recover the entire compensation, and the liability should be apportioned between the insurers. The court also determined that the compensation awarded by the tribunal was in excess of the II schedule under the MV Act.
Final Decision: MFA Crob. No. 100082/2015 was dismissed, and MFA No. 100166/2015 was allowed in part. The claimant was awarded compensation of Rs. 2,29,100/- with interest at 6% from the date of the petition till its realization. The liability to pay compensation between respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and respondent Nos. 4 to 6 was fixed in the ratio of 50:50, and the insurers were directed to deposit their respective compensation amounts before the tribunal within eight weeks.
JUDGMENT :
P.G.M. Patil, J.
1. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Thiluvalli Complex, P.B. Road, Davangere and the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 07.11.2014 passed in MVC No. 20/2012 by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and Member, MACT, Ranebennur have filed these appeals.
2. The case of the claimant before the tribunal is that on 03.04.2011 at 11.30 p.m. near Kunchiganalu village on NH-4 in Chitradurga when the petitioner and others were proceeding in a lorry bearing No. KA-01/AA-2697 along with their flower bags, at that time the first respondent alleged to have driven his lorry bearing No. KA-06/B-2023 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life as a result of which the accident was occurred and the petitioner sustained grievous injury and was taken to Government hospital Chitradurga for first aid treatment and then shifted to S.S. Hospital, Davangere for further treatment wherein, he took treatment as a inpatient from 04.04.2011 till 23.05.2011 and underwent surgery. Claimant claims to have incurred more than Rs. 1,00,000/- for his treatment. It is further urged that prior to the accident he was hale and healthy and was earning more than Rs. 3,300/- per month by doing agriculture, but due to the impact of the accident, he alleged to have become permanently disabled. The accident in question was alleged to have been occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry by respondent No. 1 and he being the driver, respondent No. 2 being the owner and respondent No. 3 being the insurer of the said vehicle all them are alleged to be jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant. The petitioner has further urged that in order to avoid further complications in the case, the driver, owner and insurer of the other lorry involved in the accident are arrayed as formal parties to the proceedings as respondent Nos. 4 to 6 respectively. Hence, the claimant has sought for a compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of the petition till the realization of the amount.
3. In pursuance to the notice, the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6 appeared through their counsel and filed their written statement, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 remained ex-parte. All these contesting respondents have denied the claim of the petitioner with regard to the occurrence of the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry by its driver, the petitioner sustaining grievous injuries in the said accident, his incurring amount towards medical expenses, his earnings etc. , The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have however shifted their liability on the third respondent on the grounds that as on the date of the accident the policy issued to the offending vehicle by the third respondent was in force and that the driver had also a valid and effective driving license on the said day and hence, they have sought for dismissal of the petition as against them. The respondent No. 3 who is insurer of the offending lorry bearing No. KA-26/B-2023 has attributed the entire fault to the fourth respondent for causing the accident by his rash and negligent driving and contended that there was no negligence on the part of the respondent No. 1 in causing the accident and it is contended that the charge sheet was also filed against the respondent No. 4 who has not challenged it and for these reasons, the respondent No. 3 has also sought for dismissal of the petition as against him. The respondent No. 6 who is the insurer of the vehicle bearing No. KA-01/AA-2697 has also pleaded to discharge him from the liability mainly on the ground that on the date of the accident, the petitioner was traveling in the said vehicle as an unauthorized passenger and as such there is violation of conditions of policy by the owner, who had also entrusted the said lorry to the respondent No. 4, who was not holding valid and effective driving license to drive it and for all these r
