Karnataka High Court
Smt. Salma Begum W/O Mohd Gouse vs The President Parkitwar ... on 2 December, 2021
Bench: M.G.S.Kamal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL
MFA No.201310/2017
C/w
MFA.No.201311/2017 (MV)
IN MFA.No.201310/2017
BETWEEN:
MOHD. GOUSE S/O ABDUL RAHEEMAN
AGE: 26 YEARS OCC: EX-SALES MAN AND PREACHER
R/O: B. SINDAGI ZAFARABAD
KALABURAGI ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B. ALI MOHAMMAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
01. THE PRESIDENT PARKITWAR FISHERMENS NA
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,
OWNER OF MAHINDRA PICKUP VAN
BEARING REG.NO.KA-32/B-7991,
R/O: S. B. TEMPLE ROAD,
KALABURAGI-585 103.
02. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
DR. JAWALI COMPLEX,
SUPER MARKET,
KALABURAGI - 585 103.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJESH G. DODDAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI. S. S. ASPALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
2
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF THE M.V. ACT, 1988 PRAYING
TO CALL THE RECORDS IN MVC.NO.689/2015 ON THE FILE
OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT,
AT KALABURAGI AND THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 17.02.2017 CAUSED IN MVC.NO.689/2015
ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MACT, KALABURAGI MAY BE MODIFIED BY GRANTING
COMPENSATION AGAINST RESPONDENT NO.2 -
INSURANCE COMPANY ALSO AS CLAIMED IN THE CLAIM
PETITION AGAINST RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 AND THIS
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED AS
PRAYED WITH COST.
IN MFA.NO.201311/2017
BETWEEN:
SMT. SALMA BEGUM W/O MOHD. GOUSE
AGE: 24 YEARS OCC: TAILORING
AND EMBROIDERING
R/O: B. SINDGI ZAFARABAD,
KALABURAGI.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B. ALI MOHAMMAD, ADVOCATE)
3
AND:
01. THE PRESIDENT PARKITWAR FISHERMENS NA
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,
OWNER OF MAHINDRA PICKUP VAN
BEARING REG.NO.KA-32/B-7991,
R/O: S. B. TEMPLE ROAD,
KALABURAGI-585 103.
02. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
DR. JAWALI COMPLEX,
SUPER MARKET,
KALABURAGI - 585 103.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJESH G. DODDAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI. S. S. ASPALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF THE M.V. ACT, 1988 PRAYING
TO CALL THE RECORDS IN MVC.NO.690/2015 ON THE FILE
OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT,
AT KALABURAGI AND THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 17.02.2017 CAUSED IN MVC.NO.690/2015
ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MACT, KALABURAGI MAY BE MODIFIED BY GRANTING
COMPENSATION AGAINST RESPONDENT NO.2 -
INSURANCE COMPANY ALSO AS CLAIMED IN THE CLAIM
PETITION AGAINST RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 AND THIS
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED AS
PRAYED WITH COST.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
4
JUDGMENT
MFA.No.201310/2017 and MFA No.201311/2017
filed by the claimants against the judgment and order
dated 17.02.2017 passed in MVC.No.689/2015 and
MVC.No.690/2015 on the file of the I Additional Senior
Civil Judge and MACT and Fast Track Court at Kalaburagi
(henceforth referred as 'Tribunal').
2. Though these matters are listed for orders, in
view of a limited issue involved therein, which is covered
by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance
Company Limited, reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663, the
same are taken up for consent of both the parties for
disposal.
3. The brief facts leading upto filing of the
appeals are that on 29.04.2015 at about 09.30 a.m. the
claimants being husband and wife were proceeding on a
motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-32-U-2732 from their house
to go to Dhanvantri Hospital, Kalaburagi. When they were
near Dhanvantri Hospital cross, suddenly a Pickup Van
bearing its Reg.No.KA-32-B-7991 came from behind in a
rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle
of the claimants. The said aspect of the matter is not in
dispute.
4. The Tribunal based on the pleadings and
evidence placed on record has held that the accident in
question had occurred on account of rash and negligent
driving of driver of the pickup van. Consequently, held that
the claimant in MVC.No.689/2015 is entitled for
compensation of `.8,16,000/- and claimant in
MVC.No.690/2015 is entitled for `.3,06,000/-.
5. There is no challenge to the said award of
compensation by the insurance company. The present
appeals are filed only to the extent of observation and the
reasons given at Para No.44 of the impugned judgment by
the Tribunal, which is extracted as under:-
"44. The respondent No.2 have contended
that the driver of the offending vehicle was not
holding valid and effective DL as on the date of
accident and thereby there is violation of policy
conditions. While discussing the issue No.2 this
Court has observed that the respondent No.2
have succeeded in proving that the rider of the
offending vehicle was not holding valid and
effective DL as on the date of the accident.
Hence, the insurance company is absolved
from its liability to indemnify the owner. As
already stated supra, the accident has taken
place due to rash and negligent driving of the
offending vehicle by its driver. The respondent
No.1 alone being the owner of the vehicle
involved in the accident is liable to pay the
compensation to the petitioner along with
interest. Accordingly, issue No.3 in both the
cases is answered partly in the affirmative."
6. The Tribunal by the aforesaid reasoning had
exonerated the insurance company from liability of paying
the compensation.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants as well
as the learned counsel for the respondents fairly submit
that the said issue is no longer res-integra as per the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mukund
Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663, wherein at paragraph
No.60.4 the Apex Court has held as under:
"60.4. The effect of amendment of Form 4 by
insertion of "transport vehicle" is related only to
the categories which were substituted in the
year 1994 and the procedure to obtain driving
license for transport vehicle of class of "light
motor vehicle" continues to be the same as it
was and has not been changed and there is no
requirement to obtain separate endorsement to
drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding
license to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive
transport vehicle of such class without any
endorsement to that effect."
8. In view of the above, the following;
ORDER
I. MFA.No.201310/2017 and MFA.No.201311/2017
filed by the claimants are partly allowed.
II. The judgment and award dated 17.02.2017 passed
in MVC.No.689/2015 and MVC.No.690/2015 by the I
Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT at
Kalaburagi, is modified.
III. The respondent No.2 - insurance company is
directed to pay the compensation with interest at the
rate of 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the
date of payment, within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
judgment.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KJJ
