IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI

M.F.A.NO.22825/2010 (MV)

BETWEEN:

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,

BELAGAVI DIVISION, THROUGH ITS

HUBBALLI REGIONAL OFFICE,

REP. BY CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER,

SUMANGALA COMPLEX, HUBBALLI

...APPELLANT.

(BY SHRI M K SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE.)

AND:

NIRANJANAGOUDA RAOSAHEB PATIL

AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

R/O. NIDSOSI, TQ: HUKKERI,

DIST: BELAGAVI.

…RESPONDENT.

(BY SHRI VIJAYKUMAR HORATTI, ADVOCATE.)

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER

SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET

ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.11.2009, PASSED IN

MVC NO.2432/2005, ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST

TRACK COURT AND MEMBER, MACT, HUKKERI, ETC.,.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE

COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

2

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award

dated 18.11.2009, passed by Fast Track Court and MACT,

Hukkeri, in MVC No.2432/2005.

2.

Brief facts are that, on 14.3.2004, Niranjangouda,

Sidagouda and Dundappa were travelling in TATA Indica car

bearing registration no.KA-23/N-5559 from Sankeshwar towards

Nidasosi. The car was driven by Sadashiv Sooji. Near Kaparal

nala, car met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving

by its driver. The occupants sustained grievous injuries and

were admitted to hospital. Despite taking treatment, they did

not

recover

fully.

They

filed

claim

petitions

seeking

compensation under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

against owner and insurer of Car.

3.

On contest, tribunal held that accident occurred due

to rash and negligent driving of car by its driver. It also held

that vehicle was insured with 2^nd respondent insurer and after

assessing compensation, passed award against 2^nd respondent.

Claimant in MVC No.2432/2005 was owner of car. He was aged

3

46 years doing agriculture and earning more than Rs.3,000/-

per month. He sustained fracture of C3 and C4 vertebra and 3^rd

and 4^th ribs on the right side, for which tribunal awarded total

compensation of Rs.35,900/-. Challenging the same, insurer is

in appeal.

4.

Shri M.K.Soudagar, learned counsel for appellant

submitted that appeal is filed challenging the award only on

liability. Admittedly claimant was insured himself and therefore

was a party to the contract of insurance. As claimant was not a

third party, a claim petition under the provisions of Motor

Vehicles Act would not be available. Without noticing the same,

tribunal passed award against insurer.

5.

On the other hand, Shri Vijaykumar Horatti, learned

counsel for respondent/claimant submitted that the ground

urged by appellant insurer would not be justified in view of

decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramkhiladi and another

vs. United India Insurance Company and another,

reported in (2020) 2 SCC 550. It was submitted that

appellant insurer cannot deny compensation to claimant as

4

additional premium towards personal accident coverage was

paid for a total sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, whereas the award was

for only Rs.35,900/-.

6.

From above submission, occurrence of accident and

claimant sustaining injuries therein are not in dispute. Before

the tribunal insurer produced copy of insurance policy as Ex.R.1.

A bare perusal of which reveal that there is a PA coverage for a

sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. As the award passed by tribunal is for

Rs.35,900/-, though in law a claim petition would not be

maintainable under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act by

insurer, however in view of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Ramkhiladi (supra), as PA coverage is established,

award passed by tribunal against appellant insurer would be

justified. There are no good grounds to interfere. Appeal is

dismissed.

Amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to t