1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

M.F.A.NO.10907/2013 (MV)

BETWEEN:

THE BRANCH MANAGER,

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,

BRANCH OFFICE: KANCHAN TOWERS,

KUNDAPURA.

BY DIVISIONAL MANAGER

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,

JEWEL PLAZA, 1^ST FLOOR

MARUTHI VEETHIKA, UDUPI-576101.

BY ITS MANAGER.

& APPELLANT

(BY SRI O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

ARUN KUMAR,

AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,

S/O RAMA DEVADIGA,

R/O MELMANE, UPPUNDA VILLAGE,

KUNDAPURA TALUK,

UDUPI DISTRICT-576101.

2.

RAGHAVENDRA DEVADIGA,

AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,

S/O KRISHNA DEVADIGA,

HERKERI, BIJOOR VILLAGE,

KUNDAPURA TALUK,

UDUPI DISTRICT-576101.

& RESPONDENTS

(R-1 AND R-2 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

2

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.10.2013

PASSED IN MVC NO.578/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT,

UDUPI (SITTING AT KUNDAPURA) KUNDAPURA, AWARDING

COMPENSATION OF Rs.1,00,350/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A.

FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL PAYMENT.

THIS MFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR

JUDGMENT ON 09.06.2021 THROUGH 8VIDEO CONFERENCE9,

THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award

dated 22.10.2013 passed in M.V.C.No.578/2011 on the file of

the Additional District and Sessions Judge and Additional MACT,

Udupi, sitting at Kundapura (8the Tribunal9 for short), questioning

the fastening of the liability on the Insurance Company.

2.

The parties are referred to as per their original

rankings before the Tribunal to avoid the confusion and for the

convenience of the Court.

3.

The factual matrix of the case is that on 21.02.2011

at about 10.30 p.m., the claimant was travelling in goods

rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-20-A-9384 along with his

goods and the goods rickshaw was driven by its driver from

Uppunda side towards Byndoor side in a very high speed and

3

rash and negligent manner and the driver lost control over the

vehicle and met with an accident. Due to the accident, the

claimant sustained grievous injuries.

4.

The respondent No.1 being the RC owner and the

insurer

being

respondent

No.2,

were

arraigned

as

the

respondents. The owner remained exparte and the Insurance

Company appeared through its counsel and filed a detailed

objection statement contending that the claimant was travelling

as a passenger in the goods rickshaw and the same amounts to

violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and hence the

Company is not liable to pay the compensation.

5.

The claimant in order to substantiate his contentions,

examined himself as P.W.1 and examined the doctor as P.W.2

and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 11. On the other

hand, the respondent examined one witness as R.W.1 and got

marked the document at Ex.R.1. The Tribunal after considering

both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, allowed

the claim petition granting compensation of Rs.1,00,350/- with

interest at the rate of 6% per annum and fastened the liability

on the Insurance Company in coming to the conclusion that the

4

claimant was travelling along with goods and Ex.R.1 policy

covers the risk of other than the driver. Hence, the Insurance

Company is liable to pay the compensation.

6.

The appellant Insurance Company in the present

appeal has contended that the claimant was proceeding as a

passenger and the Tribunal failed to consider the said fact. It is

further contended that the insured claimant tried to get down

from the moving goods auto in question in which he was

travelling as a passenger in the body of the said goods auto.

The claimant was admittedly travelling in the body of the insured

goods auto and such risk was not covered. The Tribunal even

otherwise, ought to have seen the risk of any person car