Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 2200 (KAR)

National Insurance Company Limited v. K. Vemanna

2020-11-05

NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

body2020
JUDGMENT Nataraj Rangaswamy, J. - This is an appeal filed by the insurer challenging Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal in so far as it relates to directing the insurer to pay and recover the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MVC No.7869/2008. 2. It is the case of the claimant that on 09.07.2008, at about 9.30 am., when the claimant was crossing the Palamaner-Chittoor NH-4, a motor cycle bearing registration No.AP-03-AE-0409 dashed against the claimant. As a result, the claimant suffered serious injuries. The claimant therefore, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claming compensation of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. 3. The insurer filed its written statement contending that the driver of the offending motor cycle did not possess a licence to drive the motor cycle. The Tribunal having regard to the evidence on record, awarded compensation of a sum of Rs.60,067/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till payment. Since, the Tribunal found that the rider of the motor cycle did not possess a valid licence, it directed the owner of the motor cycle to pay the said sum within a period of three months, failing which, the owner shall pay the interest at the rate of 8% per annum. However, since, the vehicle in question was covered by a policy of insurance, it directed the insurer to pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. 4. The insurer is therefore, in this appeal contending that the Tribunal having once noticed that the driver of the motor cycle did not possess a driving licence, could not have directed the payment and recovery of the compensation awarded by it. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant insurer did not dispute that this issue is now squarely covered by the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pappu and Others Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba and Another, (2018) 3 SCC 208 , as well as the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shamanna and another Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others, (2018) 9 SCC 650 , wherein too, the Apex Court had directed the payment of compensation and recovering it from the owner. 6. Vinod Kumar Lamba and Another, (2018) 3 SCC 208 , as well as the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shamanna and another Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others, (2018) 9 SCC 650 , wherein too, the Apex Court had directed the payment of compensation and recovering it from the owner. 6. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any exception to fastening the liability to pay the compensation on the insurer and to permit the insurer to recover the compensation from the owner of the offending vehicle. 7. Since, the Tribunal had directed the respondent No.2 to pay interest at the rate of 8% per annum, if the compensation amount is not deposited within two months, the same requires modification and the insurer is directed to pay the interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit. 8. Hence, the appeal is partly allowed and the insurer is directed to pay and recover the compensation of Rs.60,067/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. 9. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for necessary orders.