Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 19373
- 1 -
MFA No. 22586 of 2010
C/W MFA No. 22587 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 22586 OF 2010 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 22587 OF 2010
MFA No.22586 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
1.
PRAKASH MAHADEVAPPA ARLIKATTI
AGE 37 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE and MILK
VENDINGR/O HIREBAGEWADI TAL/DIST. BELGAUM
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, AMICUS CURIAE)
AND:
1.
SHRI SANJEEV S. SHETTAR DELETED
2.
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, CLUB ROAD,
BELGAUM INSURER OF MAXI CAB NO. KA-24/A-4420
3.
RAMANGOUDA SHIVANGOUDA PATIL
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS R/O 7TH CROSS,
BASAV NAGAR BAILHONGAL DIST. BELGAUM
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N.R.KUPPELLUR, ADV. FOR R2,
SRI. JAGADISH PATIL ADV. FOR R3)
- 2 -
MFA No. 22586 of 2010
C/W MFA No. 22587 of 2010
MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 9.12.2009 PASSED IN MVC
NO.716/2006 ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AND
MACT, BELGAUM, PARTLY ALLOWING CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSAITON
AND
SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT
OF
COMPENSATION.
MFA No.22587 OF 2010
BETWEEN
1 .
SMT. SOMAVVA W/O RUDRAGOUDA
MADHUBARMANNAVAR
AGE 44 YEARS, OCC AT PRESENT NIL,R/O
HIREBAGEWADI, TQ AND DIST BELGAUM.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, AMICUS CURIAE)
AND
1.
SHRI SANJEEV S. SHETTAR DELETED
2.
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO., LTD.,
BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,CLUB ROAD,
BELGAUM.INSURER OF MAXI CAB NO: KA-24/A-4420.
3.
RAMANGOUDA SHIVANGOUDA PATIL
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,R/O 7TH CROSS, BASAV
NAGAR,BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELGAUM.(OWNER OF
ABOVE VEHICLE)
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N.R.KUPPELLUR, ADV. FOR R2,
R3 NOTICE SERVED)
MFA FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT
1988,
AGAINST
THE
The liability of an insurer in case of motor vehicle accidents is limited to the number of persons covered by the insurance policy.
Headnote:
INSURANCE - LIABILITY - MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT - CLAIMS IN EXCESS OF PERMITTED SEATING CAPACITY - LIABILITY OF INSURER - APPORTIONMENT OF COMPENSATION
Fact of the Case:
In an accident involving a Maxi cab, more than 12 passengers were injured and filed claims. The insurer accepted liability for 12 claims, but the claimants argued that the insurer should be liable for the 12 highest awards.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the insurer was liable to satisfy the 12 highest awards and that in respect of other claims, the insurer would be liable to pay compensation to claimants and thereafter recover the same from the insured.
Issues: 1) Whether the finding of the Tribunal regarding the liability of the insurer called for interference?2) Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation as sought for?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. K.M.Poonam & Others, reported in (2015) 15 SCC 297, which held that the liability of the insurer is confined to the number of persons covered by the insurance policy and not beyond the same.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals in part and enhanced the compensation awarded to the claimants. The insurer was held liable to deposit compensation in respect of all awards, but its liability would be only in respect of 12 of the highest awards. The insurer was entitled to claim reimbursement of awards beyond 12 of the highest awards from the insured in the same execution proceedings.
AWARD
DATED:09.12.2009 PASSED IN MVC NO.715/2006 ON THE FILE
OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) & MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELGAUM, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
- 3 -
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Challenging common impugned judgment and award
dated 09.12.2009, passed by Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn)
& MACT, Belgaum, in MVC Nos.715 & 716/2006, these
appeals are filed by claimants.
Sri.
Hanumanathareddy
Sahukar,
learned
Amicus Curiae for claimants- appellants submitted that in
an accident that occurred on 21/08/2005 at about 9:00
a.m. within limits of Sampagaon village on P.B. Road,
wherein Maxi cab bearing registration no.KA-24/A-4420
turned turtle. Claimants-inmates of Maxi cab sustained
grievous injuries. Seeking for compensation, they filed
claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act,
against owner and Insurer of Maxi cab.
Upon service of notice, only insurer filed
objection contending that at time of accident, driver of
Mexi cab was not possessing valid and effective driving
licence and policy issued by insurer was to cover risk of
- 4 -
only 12 inmates which was permitted seating capacity of
vehicle and insurer had accepted liability in respect of 12
claims. As claim herein was beyond seating capacity, they
were denied.
4.
Based on pleadings, Tribunal framed following
common issues:-
i)
Whether the petitioner proves that the alleged
accident in question was occurred due to rash
and negligent driving of the Maxi Cab bearing
No.KA-24/A-4420 by its driver and as a result,
she sustained injuries as alleged?
ii)
Whether
the
petitioner
is
entitled
for
compensation? If so, for what amount and from
whom?
iii)
What award or order?
5.
Thereafter, claimants examined themselves as
PW1 and PW2 respectively and Dr.S.R.Angadi as PW3.
Exs.P1 to P18 were marked. For insurer, its administrative
- 5 -
officer was examined as RW1 and copy of insurance policy
was marked with consent as Ex.R1.
6.
On consideration, tribunal answered issue no.1
in ‘affirmative’ and issue no.2 ‘partly in affirmative’ and
awarded
compensation
of
Rs.70,600/-
in
MVC
no.715/2006 and Rs.76,000/- in MVC no.716/2006 and
answered issue no.3 by holding respondent no.3 owner of
Maxi cab liable to pay same.
7.
Assailing findings insofar as liability, and also
seeking enhancement of compensation claimants are in
appeal. Relying upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
case
of
United
India
Insurance
Co.Ltd.
Vs.
K.M.Poonam & Others, reported in (2015) 15 SCC
297, it was submitted that while examining similar
situation, where claims in excess of permitted seating
capacity of vehicle were filed, Hon’ble Supreme Court after
considering earlier judgments and provisions of Motor
Vehicles Act held as follows:-
- 6 -
“24. The liability of the insurer, therefore, is
confined to the number of persons covered by the
insurance policy and not beyond the same. In
other words, as in the present case, since the
insurance policy of the owner of the vehicle
covered six occupants of the vehicle in question,
including the driver, the liability of the insurer
would
be
confined
to
six
persons
only,
notwithstanding the larger number of persons
carried in the vehicle. Such excess number of
persons would have to be treated as third parties,
but since no premium had been paid in the policy
for them, the insurer would not be liable to make
payment of the compensation amount as far as
they are concerned. However, the liability of the
Insurance Company to make payment even in
respect of persons not covered by the insurance
policy continues under the provisions of sub-section
(1) of Section 149 of the Act, as it would be
entitled to recover the same if it could prove that
one of the conditions of the policy had been
breached by the owner of the vehicle. In the
instant case, any of the persons traveling in the
vehicle in excess of the permitted number o
