Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 31386
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J
M/S ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD. – Appellant
Versus
THE HEAD MISTRESS, CARMEL SCHOOL – Respondent
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 642 OF 2023 | O.S.No.3087/2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. KRISHNA KISHORE S.
For the Respondents: SRI. K.P.BHUVAN
Insurers are obligated to indemnify insured parties for third-party claims covered under their policies, which includes reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by insured parties on behalf of the injured.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96 - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Suit for recovery of medical expenses - Appellant-insurer directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. to the respondent for payments made to the injured party - Respondent not liable for contributing negligence as minor was a pedestrian at the time of the accident - The insurer must indemnify the plaintiff for payments made under circumstances covered by the policy. (Paras 6, 24, 36)
(B) Limitation - Suit found not to be barred by limitation, as the claim arose from actions directly related to prior legal proceedings in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. (Paras 21)
Facts of the case:
This appeal arises from a suit for recovery filed by a school against its insurer for expenses incurred after a student was injured in a road accident involving a vehicle insured by the appellant. The trial court awarded a partially favorable decree for the recovery of amounts paid towards medical expenses. The plaintiff argued that they had paid medical expenses on behalf of the injured student and sought recovery from the insurer.
Findings of Court:
The trial court correctly held that the payment made by the plaintiff was covered under the insurance policy, obliging the insurer to indemnify the plaintiff. The trial court ordered payment of Rs.2,00,000/- plus interest, affirming the plaintiff's claim.
Issues: The main issues involved determining whether the trial court's decree was justified regarding the liability of the insurer and the applicability of the limitation period.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the plaintiff's payments were validly made under the terms of the insurance policy and thus enforceable against the insurer. The claim was also timely filed, as it stemmed from the outcome of related tribunal proceedings.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. case background and basis for the suit. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. formation of issues based on pleadings. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. evidential support for the plaintiff's claims. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 14) |
| 4. quantum of compensation and payment liabilities. (Para 17 , 19) |
| 5. final determination and order of compensation. (Para 23 , 24 , 26) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal by the 1st defendant in O.S.No.3087/2016 is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 25.07.2022 passed by the LXIII Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, whereby the said suit filed by the respondent – plaintiff against the appellant – 1st defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,24,000/- together with interest at 24% p.a. was partly decreed by the trial court, which directed the appellant – 1st defendant to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of the suit till realization in favour of the respondent –plaintiff.
2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the 1st respondent – plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the appellant – 1st defendant and 2nd defendant of recovery of a sum of Rs.2,24,000/- together with interest at 24% p.a. interalia contending that the plaintiff is running a school under the name and style “Carmel School”, Padmanabhanagar, Bangalore and had provided vehicle facilities for transport of its students. It was contended that the appellant – 1st defendant – Insurance company had issued an insurance policy in relation to a school van of the plaintiff bearing Reg.No.KA-07 A-1543 for the period from 28.05.2012 to 27.05.2013. It was also contended that 2nd defendant, Kum.K.V.Jyothika sustained injuries in a road traffic accident that occurred when she was crossing the road on account of the aforesaid vehicle, pursuant to which, she filed a claim petition in MVC No.3825/2013 against the plaintiff’s school and 1st defendant – Insurance company. Meanwhile, the plaintiff had already paid a sum of Rs.2 lakhs towards medical expenses to the 2nd defendant – student. The plaintiff who was arrayed as 1st respondent in MVC No.3825/2013 also contended that the said sum of Rs.2 lakhs paid by it to the 1st defendant – Insurance company is to be refunded back to the plaintiff by the MACT by directing the entire compensation to be paid only by the 1st defendant – Insurance company to the 2nd defendant – claimant. However, the MACT while allowing the claim petition vide judgment and award dated 10.02.2015 awarded compensation in a total sum of Rs.4,37,500/- in favour of the 2nd defendant – claimant and out of the said amount, deducted Rs.2 lakhs already paid by the plaintiff and accordingly, directed the Insurance company to pay the balance sum of Rs.2,37,500/- to the claimant. Insofar as the claim for refund by the plaintiff was concerned, the MACT reserved liberty in favour of the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit for the said amount. It was contended that the plaintiff having issued a legal notice demanding payment, the 1st defendant did not comply with the said demand and as such, the plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit.
3. The appellant – 1st defendant filed its written statement and contested the suit and sought for its dismissal.
4. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues:-
“ 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the insurance police veering No.3004/71689375/00/000 permits the plaintiff to recover from the 1st defendant the amount that already paid to the 2nd defendant towards medical expenses?
2. Whether the plaintiffs is entitle to recover the suit claim amount from the defendant?
3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
4. What order or decree?”
5. Plaintiff examined its Head Mistress as PW-1 and documentary evidence at Exs.P1 to P12 were marked, while the appellant examined DW-1 and marked the Insurance policy as Ex.D1. By the impugned judgment and decree, the trial court partly decreed the suit, aggrieved by which, the appellant
