Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 292 (KAR)

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. DEVIBAI

2015-03-13

BUDIHAL R.B.

body2015
JUDGMENT : BUDIHAL R.B., J. 1. This is the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award passed by the tribunal in MVC No. 347/2012, on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT at Gulbarga, fastening the liability on them. The appellant-Insurance Company has challenged the validity and correctness of the judgment and award passed by the tribunal on the grounds as mentioned in the appeal memorandum. The appellant has also challenged the quantum of compensation, which is on the higher side. 2. The brief facts leading to the case presented before the tribunal that on 04.11.2011, at about 6.00 p.m., the petitioner along with her husband were travelling in a tom tom autorickshaw bearing registration No. KA-32/A-9814, to attend Sunday bazar. At that time, the driver of the said vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and that it was turtled. As a result of which, they sustained injuries and they were taken to the hospital for treatment. Hence, they have made the claim against the owner of the vehicle and also the Insurance Company. 3. The Insurance Company has filed the objection statement, denying the averments made in the petition and also denying its liability. It has also specifically contended that there is a violation of the terms and conditions of the policy by the owner of the vehicle. Respondent No. 2 raised the contention that the vehicle at that time was plied outside the permitted limits as it is specified in the Insurance Policy and as it amounts to violation of the conditions of the policy. There is no liability on the part of the Insurance Company. 4. On the basis of the said pleadings presented by the parties, the tribunal has considered the material placed on record, both the oral and documentary, allowed the claim petition in part and the liability was fastened even on the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount with interest. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the policy, there is a condition that the vehicle has to ply within the limits as mentioned in the policy. But looking to the place of the accident, it is outside the dace, as permitted in the policy. Therefore, it amounts to violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the policy, there is a condition that the vehicle has to ply within the limits as mentioned in the policy. But looking to the place of the accident, it is outside the dace, as permitted in the policy. Therefore, it amounts to violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. Hence, learned counsel made the submission that the tribunal has not at all considered this aspect and wrongly fastened the liability even on the Insurance Company to pay the award amount. Learned counsel also made the submission that even the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal is on the higher side and it is not in accordance with the material placed on record. Hence, sought to allow the appeal and to set aside the findings of the tribunal so far as the liability of the Insurance Company is concerned and also to reduce the compensation amount to the reasonable limit. 6. As against this, learned counsel for respondent/claimant submits that the liability is correctly fastened even on the Insurance Company. Learned counsel made the submission that simply because the accident place is outside place as mentioned in the Insurance Policy that itself will not amounting for violation of conditions of the Insurance Policy. In this connection, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of this Court rendered in MFA No. 30274/2010 dated 20th August, 2014. So also the judgment reported in United India Insurance Company Limited, Bangalore Vs. Chandamma and Others, (2000) ILR (Kar) 1302 and another judgment in K.V. Thimmagowda Vs. Kamalamma and Others, (1992) ACJ 306 of the Karnataka High Court. Hence, he made the submission that the liability has been correctly fastened on the Insurance Company and it is in accordance with law and it does not require interference by this Court. On the quantum of compensation, the learned counsel submitted that whatever the amount awarded is just and reasonable. Hence, the contention of the appellant is to be rejected. 7. Perused the grounds urged appeal memorandum, the judgment and award passed by the tribunal and also the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant. On the quantum of compensation, the learned counsel submitted that whatever the amount awarded is just and reasonable. Hence, the contention of the appellant is to be rejected. 7. Perused the grounds urged appeal memorandum, the judgment and award passed by the tribunal and also the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant. Looking to the material placed on record so also the legal position in the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, the tribunal has correctly held that there is no violation of the conditions of the policy and correctly fastened the liability on the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount with interest. Perusing the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel and principles annunciated, cannot be said that there is a violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. Hence, so far as the said contention of the appellant is concerned, it has no merit. 8. Regarding the quantum of compensation, the appellant has not at all shown how the award amount is on the higher side. It has generally mentioned in the appeal grounds that the compensation amount is on the higher side. But looking to the oral evidence adduced by the parties and also the documents, the tribunal has correctly assessed the materials and rightly awarded the compensation, which is just and reasonable. It cannot be held that there is any illegality committed by the tribunal nor there is any perverse or capricious view taken in the matter. Therefore, looking to these materials on record, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by the appellant/Insurance Company.