Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Hanchate Sanjeevkumar, J.
The Divisional Manager Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd Sadiq Complex, Shivamogga - Appellant
Vs.
Ismail @ Ismail Khan S/o Miyajan Khan - Respondent
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 9192, 8766, 9193 Of 2018, Miscellaneous First Appeal Crob No.88 Of 2021 (MV-I)
Decided On : 28-11-2022
Liability - Insurance Company - Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Section 147 of MV Act - MFA.No.9192/2018, MFA.No.8766/2018, MFA.No.9193/2018, MFA.Crob.No.88/2021 - Rule 100 of KMV Rules, 1989, Section 147 of MV Act - The court discussed the liability of the Insurance Company under Rule 100 of KMV Rules, 1989 and Section 147 of MV Act. It interpreted the legal provisions and judgments to discharge the Insurance Company from making payment of compensation to the claimants and to indemnify the owner. The court found that the risk of the claimants was not covered under Section 147 of MV Act and the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court influenced the decision to exonerate the Insurance Company from liability.
Fact of the Case:
The claimants were traveling as gratuitous passengers in a goods vehicle and sustained injuries due to a rash and negligent driving. The Insurance Company challenged the liability fastened on them, arguing that the claimants were not covered under the insurance policy.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the claimants' risk was not covered under Section 147 of MV Act and the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court influenced the decision to exonerate the Insurance Company from liability. The court also modified the compensation awarded to the claimants based on the notional income and disability percentage.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants for injuries sustained while traveling as gratuitous passengers in a goods vehicle.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of Rule 100 of KMV Rules, 1989 and Section 147 of MV Act, as well as the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It found that the claimants' risk was not covered under Section 147 of MV Act, leading to the exoneration of the Insurance Company from liability.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals filed by the Insurance Company and modified the compensation awarded to the claimants based on the notional income and disability percentage. The liability was fixed on the owner of the offending vehicle to pay compensation to the claimants, and the Insurance Company was exonerated from liability.
JUDGMENT :
MFA.No.9192/2018 is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 05.09.2018 passed in MVC.No.245/2016 by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and AMACT VI at Shivamogga, questioning the liability fastened on the Insurance Company.
MFA.No.8766/2018 is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 05.09.2018 passed in MVC.No.245/2016 by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and AMACT VI at Shivamogga, for seeking enhancement of compensation.
MFA.No.9193/2018 is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 05.09.2018 passed in MVC.No.246/2016 by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and AMACT VI at Shivamogga, questioning the liability fastened on the Insurance Company.
MFA.Crob.No.88/2021 is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 05.09.2018 passed in MVC.No.246/2016 by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and AMACT VI at Shivamogga, for seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. Brief facts of the cases are that, on 03.11.2014 the claimants-Ismail Khan and Shabeer Khan went to Ananthpur in order to transport 27 bags of corn seeds belongs to Amanulla. The aforesaid Amanulla had engaged the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-16/B-5664 belongs to respondent No.2 for transporting the goods and respondent No.1 was the driver of the vehicle. The claimants loaded the corn seeds to the aforesaid vehicle and when they were proceeding to Shivamogga on NH.206, respondent No.1 who is the driver of the said vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and caused accident near Muddinakoppa. Due to the said impact, the claimants fell down and sustained grievous injuries.
3. Heard the arguments from both sides and perused the records.
SUBMISSION OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE INSURANCE COMPANY:
4. The Tribunal has determined the compensation and fastened the liability on the Insurance Company to pay the compensation.
5. Sri H.N.Keshava Prashanth, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submitted that, in the present case, the claimants were travelling as gratuitous passengers in the goods vehicle and also travelling on the body of the vehicle by sitting on the load of jowar crop. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner to pay the compensation. Further submitted that there were five persons travelling including the owner of jowar load and one driver, but the seating capacity of the offending vehicle is two persons (1+1) and also the insurance policy covers the risk of driver and owner of the goods, but not any other employee/coolie/loader/un-loader, since extra premium is not paid. Therefore, submitted that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation.
6. Further submitted that even as per Rule 100 of Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “KMV Rules”) in Light Goods Vehicle three persons are permitted to travel along with the goods where the laden registered weight is more than 990 kgs. In the present case, undisputedly, the registered laden weight is 2750 kgs. Therefore, Clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Rule 100 of KMV Rules is applicable where the vehicle movement is within the same town or city, but in the present case, the offending vehicle was moving from Ananthapur to Shivamogga city and both these Ananthapur and Shivamogga city are two different places and both the places are not in the same city. Therefore, Clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Rule 100 of KMV Rules is not applicable. Therefore, submitted that, even though, Rule 100 of KMV Rule is not beneficial to the claimants so as to fasten the liability on the Insurance Company.
7. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has relied on the following judgments:
(i) MFA.NO.40/2010 DD. 08.06.2012 (THE BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., VS. SMT.BELLAMMA); (Smt. Bellamma’s case)
(ii) NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., VS. PREMBAI PATEL AND OTHERS - (
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Rule 100 of KMV Rules, 1989 and Section 147 of MV Act to determine the liability of the Insurance Company in a case involving....
The court established that a claimant returning in a goods vehicle after unloading goods is considered an authorized representative, thus entitled to compensation under Section 147 of the Motor Vehic....
The liability of the insurer under a statutory policy is restricted to indemnify the insured in respect of claims made by third parties and the owner of goods or their authorized representatives who ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of 'goods' under Sec. 2(13) of the M.V. Act and its application to the case, which influenced the court's deci....
Gratuitous passengers in goods vehicles are not entitled to insurance coverage under the Motor Vehicles Act, affecting liability in compensation claims.
The court affirmed that an employee traveling in a Goods Auto Rickshaw is covered under the insurance policy, and compensation must reflect the claimant's permanent functional disability.
Objects and reasons is to amend Section 147 to include owner of goods or his authorised representative carried in vehicle for purposes of liability under insurance policy.
The court reaffirmed that insurance companies are liable to indemnify victims injured in goods vehicle accidents, even where passengers exceed policy limits, unless such violations are fundamental.
The absence of goods in the vehicle at the time of the accident does not preclude a person from being treated as the owner of the goods, and the violation of policy conditions must be substantiated w....
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
