Mere Mentioning Of Cardiac Respiratory Arrest In Postmortem Report Is Not A Ground To Urge That Death Was Not Connected To Accident: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court observed that mere mentioning of cardiac respiratory arrest in the postmortem report is not a ground to urge that the death was not connected to the accident.
The Court was hearing a Miscellaneous First Appeal filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhancement of compensation, whereas the Insurance Company is questioning the legality of the liability fastened against it.
The bench of Justice TG Shivashankare Gowda observed, “…even though this is a case of fundamental breach, the Insurance Company can avoid its liability, as the petitioners are 3rd parties in view of the contract of insurance, the Insurance Company has to pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Hence, the principle of pay and recovery is applicable.”
Advocate O Mahesh appeared for the Appellant and Advocate AK Bhat appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
In the present case, the husband of Petitioner No.1 and father of Petitioners No.2 and 3, was fatally injured when a goods vehicle hit him while cycling and he later succumbed to his injuries. The Petitioners, as dependents, sought compensation of Rs.30L from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Insurance Company opposed the claim. The Tribunal awarded Rs.13.88L with 9% interest. The Petitioners were dissatisfied with the amount, and the Insurance Company, contesting liability, approached the Court.
The Court observed, “Mere mentioning of cardiac respiratory arrest in the postmortem report is not a ground to urge that the death was not connected to the accident.”
The Court noted, “…vehicle in question was not holding valid permit and fitness certificate while plying on the road at the time of accident…It is treated as a fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the policy. The Insurance Company can avoid its liability as defence is available under Section 149(2)(a)(i)(a) of the MV Act.”
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Appeals in part.
Cause Title: Legal Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited v. Nagamma (Neutral Citation: 2024:KHC:38623)
