Insurance Department’s car causes accident

NT Correspondent

Bengaluru: A car belonging to the Karnataka Government Insurance Department (KGID) caused an accident for which it was ordered to pay compensation by a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT).

The Department however approached the High Court with the plea that it had already auctioned of the said car and it was sold by the buyer to another person who had caused the accident.

Considering this, the High Court remanded the matter to the MACT for fresh consideration. KGID approached the HC with the appeal in 2012 against the order of the MACT. BM Muniraju and Shakeela Banu were the respondents in the case.

BM Muniraju was apparently standing on Byatarayanapura service road on July 1, 2010 when the Ambassador car (KA04 MG 6726) allegedly driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against him causing multiple fractures and other injuries to him.

He filed a claim petition seeking compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.9,42,200 and held that KGID should pay the compensation within 30 days. Shakeela Banu was also made liable for the accident.

In the HC, the counsel for KGID argued that the said vehicle was sold in a public auction on November 10, 2009 to one K Chandrababu who had then sold it to Shakeela Banu on February 17, 2010. Since the accident happened on July 1, 2010, KGID was not liable to pay the compensation as it was not the owner at that point of time.

The HC in its recent judgement said, “When this being the specific averment made out in the written statement by the appellant-KGID, then the tribunal ought to have framed issue providing the ownership of the offending vehicle. Therefore, the matter is required to be remanded to the Tribunal for determining as to who is the owner of the Ambassador car as on the date of accident and also on the quantum of compensation determined.”

Directing the Tribunal to complete the proceedings within four months, Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar said, “Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the appeal is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. All the contentions are left open. Both the parties are at liberty to produce the further documents, if they are so advised.” (MFA 7945/2012)