Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager, National vs Kamanna And Anr on 3 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4569
MFA No. 200880 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3 RD DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200880 OF 2018 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, BILGUNDI MANSION,
OPP: MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA,
GULBARGA-585102,
THROUGH AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KAMANNA S/O MALLAPPA PUJARI
Digitally signed by
KHAJAAMEEN L AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE LABOUR
MALAGHAN NOW NIL,
Location: HIGH R/O. BAMMNAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ. ALAND,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA NOW RESIDING NEAR QUADRI CHOWK,
ALAND ROAD, KALABURAGI-585104.
2. SHANKAR S/O LAXMAN BABLAD
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF MAXICAB BEARING,
REG.NO.KA-32/2833, R/O. KINNI SULTAN VILLAGE,
TQ. ALAND, DIST. KALABURAGI-585314.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI KRUPA SAGAR PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 PLACED EXPARTE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4569
MFA No. 200880 of 2018
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF M.V.
ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.02.2018 PASSED BY THE I
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, KALABURAGI IN
MVC.NO.1095/2014 BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AS PRAYED
FOR.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is by the insurer challenging the liability fastened on it to pay the compensation even without giving liberty to recover the same from the owner.
02. The short question involved in this case is whether the owner of the vehicle violates permit condition and run the vehicle without permit, then the insurance company is responsible for payment of the compensation.? -3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4569 MFA No. 200880 of 2018
03. It is the case of the claimant that on 21.03.2014 he was proceeding in the Maxicab bearing No.KA-32-2833 from Bommanhalli to Gulbarga; around 12.30 in the noon, due to rash and negligent driving of Maxicab by its driver, the vehicle was turn turtled. On account of the same, inmates of the vehicle sustained grievous injuries. The claimant had also sustained two fractures. Hence, prayed for compensation.
04. The respondent No.2 - insurer in its objections denied the accident and contended that it is not liable to pay the compensation in case there is any violation of the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance and holding of valid and effective driving license by the driver of the vehicle.
05. It appears that during the course of the trial the insurer found that the driver of the offended vehicle had no valid and effective driving license to drive the said class of vehicle. In addition to that the said offended vehicle -4- NC: 2024:KHC-K:4569 MFA No. 200880 of 2018 was a private vehicle, which was running without valid permit. These questions were raised before the Tribunal. In the alternative, the insurer had also contended that in the event the Tribunal directs the insurer to pay the compensation, then the liberty be given to the insurance company to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle. However, the Tribunal in the impugned judgment in Para No.29 to 31 held that holding of a LMV without transport endorsement, is sufficient to drive the said class of vehicle and insurer failed to prove that the owner had no permit to run the said vehicle.
06. The findings of the Tribunal are that due to non-availability of sufficient evidence, to hold that there was no permit and the insurer was unable to produce the materials to show that the said vehicle was not having valid permit. The findings of the Tribunal that owner of the vehicle was not having required permit and that was not proved by the insurer, is acceptable. The owner of the -5- NC: 2024:KHC-K:4569 MFA No. 200880 of 2018 vehicle is party to the proceeding and he had appeared before the Tribunal, but did not file the written statement or prosecuted the case. He was not produced the permit, said to be obtained by him from the concerned RTO. The insurer had issued notice to the owner of the vehicle to furnish the said document. However, the owner did not care for the same.
07. Under these circumstances, there was no hurdle for the Tribunal to give liberty to the insurance company to recover the compensation amount from the owner of the vehicle in a appropriate proceedings, showing that the owner had no valid permit to run the said vehicle on the public road. If the owner had such permit, he may produce in the same before the forum and prove holding of a permit to run the said vehicle on the public road. Keeping open this liberty to the insurer, the appeal could be disposed of. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following.
-6- NC: 2024:KHC-K:4569 MFA No. 200880 of 2018 ORDER I. The Appeal is allowed. II. The insurer is directed to pay the compensation
with liberty to recover the said amount from the owner of the vehicle in a appropriate proceedings, if the owner had no permit to run the said vehicle.
III. Whatever amount deposited by the insurer shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for the payment to the claimant.
The registry is directed to send back the Trial Court record along with copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
JUDGE KJJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34 CT:PK