Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
P.G.M. PATIL, J.
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co Ltd - Appellant
Versus
Hanmantappa - Respondent
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 102269, 102268, 102267 of 2017
Decided On : 01-07-2019
Negligence - Motor Vehicle Accident - Sections 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the negligence in a motor vehicle accident and the liability of the insurer under Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The court referred to various judgments to establish that the violation of a statutory provision does not necessarily lead to negligence causing the accident. It emphasized the need for concrete evidence to establish contributory negligence and held that the burden of proving contributory negligence rests on the insurer. The court also highlighted that the breach of the policy must be fundamental in nature to avoid liability. The judgment focused on the interpretation of Section 128 of the Act and the principles of contributory negligence.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a motor vehicle accident where the claimants sought compensation for injuries sustained. The insurer contested the liability, arguing contributory negligence on the part of the motorcycle rider and pillion riders. The Tribunal awarded compensation, leading to the insurer filing appeals.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the insurer failed to prove contributory negligence on the part of the motorcycle rider and pillion riders. It emphasized the need for concrete evidence to establish contributory negligence and held that the burden of proving contributory negligence rests on the insurer. The court also held that the breach of the policy must be fundamental in nature to avoid liability. As a result, the court dismissed one appeal and allowed the others in part, reducing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
Issues: The key issues before the court were whether the insurer had grounds to reduce its liability based on contributory negligence and whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was appropriate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the principles of contributory negligence. It emphasized the need for concrete evidence to establish contributory negligence and held that the burden of proving contributory negligence rests on the insurer. The court also highlighted that the breach of the policy must be fundamental in nature to avoid liability.
Final Decision: The court dismissed one appeal and allowed the others in part, reducing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The claimants were awarded revised compensation amounts, and the insurer was directed to transmit the compensation to the concerned Tribunal.
JUDGMENT :
P.G.M. PATIL, J.
1. The insurer-Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited being aggrieved by the common judgment and award dated 10.02.2017 passed in MVC 6 Nos.871/2014, 872/2014 and 873/2014 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Member, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranebennur has filed these appeals.
2. It is the case of the claimants before the Tribunal that on 08.01.2014 at about 12.15 p.m. one Hanumanthappa Mailappa Doddamani was riding the motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-27/Y-5501 along with Sannappa Bani and Hanumanthappa Huchappa Doddamani as pillion riders from Devargudda-Kajjari village. When the vehicle came near Kotihal village, a car bearing No.KA-04/MH-0616 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle, as a result, the rider and pillion riders of the bike fell down and sustained grievous injuries.
3. The legal representatives of deceased Hanumanthappa Mailappa Doddamani filed MVC No.871/2014 and legal representative of Sannappa Hanumanthappa Banifiled MVC No.872/2014 and the other pillion rider who sustained injuries filed the petition in MVC No.873/2014.
4. The claimants have stated that the deceased Hanumantappa was earning Rs.25,000/-by doing agricultural work. The claimants-legal representative of Sannappa Bani have stated that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- p.m. by doing agricultural work and that the claimants in both the cases have lost their dependency. Claimant in MVC No.873/2014 has stated that he was earning Rs.15,000/-p.m. by doing agricultural work and milk vending and due to the accidental injuries, he has permanently become disabled. He has spent Rs.1,50,000/- for medical treatment. The claimants in MVC No.871/2014 claimed compensation of Rs.40,00,000/-, claimants in MVC No.872/2014 claimed compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- and the claimant in MVC No.873/2014 claimed compensation for injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident. All the three cases were clubbed together and common evidence was recorded and disposed of by a common judgment.
5. In pursuance of the notice, respondent-owner and insurer of the offending vehicle appeared before the Tribunal and respondent No.1 has filed the written statement denying the averments made in the petitions in toto. He has further stated that his vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 and the insurance policy was in force as on the date of the accident and the driver of the car was holding a valid and effective licence and in case any compensation to be paid, respondent No.2 is liable. Respondent No.2 filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition in toto. He has admitted that the car was insured with him. He has further contended that the accident occurred due to the composite negligence of the rider of the bike who was riding with two pillion riders. The rider of the motorcycle was negligent by not wearing the helmet. Therefore, claim petition against him be dismissed.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the issues.
7. In support of the claim petitions the claimants got examined themselves as PWs.1 to PW4 and got marked 52 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.52. Respondent No.2 got examined its official witness as RW-1 and got marked two documents as Exs.R1 to R2.
8. Learned member of the Tribunal, after hearing both the parties, passed the impugned judgment awarding compensation of Rs.13,22,500/- in MVC No.871/2014, Rs.13,07,500/- in MVC No.872/2014 and Rs.3,51,500/- in MVC No.873/2014. Respondent No.2 insurer was directed to deposit the compensation.
9. The insurer being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award has filed these appeals, on the grounds that the accident in question was occurred due to negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle carrying two pillion riders in violation of traffic rules, safety clause. The Tribunal has unjustifiably rejected the defence of the appellants on this ground. The appellants have alternatively
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
