Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Ningappa S/O. Mallappa ... on 2 December, 2021
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 02 N D DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
M.F.A.NO.21175/2012 (MV)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURA NCE CO. LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, HUBLI,
THROUGH ITS REGIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURA NCE CO. LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE, SUJATA COMPLEX,
P.B. ROAD , HUBLI.
... APPELLANT
(BY SMT. CHITRA M.GOUDALKAR F OR
SRI . M.K.S OUDAGAR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . NINGAPPA S/O. MALLAPPA BEVINAMARAD,
AGE: 39 YEARS , OCC: A GRICULTURE,
R/O. AREMALLA PUR VILLA GE,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI .
2 . SRI.MOHAMMED IS MAIL,
S/O. ABDUL JAMALSAB,
AGE: 48 YEARS , OCC: BUSINESS ,
R/O. 60/ 2, 4TH MA IN, 7TH CROSS ,
YALLAMMA NAGAR, DAVANAGERE.
3 . ASHOK MALLA PPA ARYARU,
AGE: 50 YEARS , OCC: BUSINESS ,
R/O. SHAMSHIPU BELLANDI POST,
TAL: HARIHAR, DI ST: DAVANGERE.
... RES PONDENTS
2
(BY SMT. REBEENA SHIVAPUR F OR S RI M.H.PATIL,
ADVOCATE FOR R3)
(BY SRI.PRUTHVI K.S, ADVOCATE F OR R1)
(R2 N OTICE HELD SUFFIECENT)
THIS MISC.FIRST APPEAL IS FI LED UNDER SECTION
173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES A CT, 1988, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND A WARD DATED 07.01.2012 PA SSED IN MVC
NO. 530/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIIONAL MACT,
RANEBENNUR, AWARDING THE COMPENSAION OF
RS.1,49,500/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A .,
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMI SSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT , D ELIV ERED THE F OLLOW ING:
JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated
07.01.2012 passed by Additional Senior Civil Judge and
Additional MACT, Ranebennur (for short, 'Tribunal') in
MVC No.530/2009, this appeal is filed by insurer on the
finding of liability.
2. Though this appeal coming on for admission,
this day, with consent, taken up for final disposal.
3. Brief facts as stated are that, on 10.10.2008,
claimant - Ningappa was walking by the side of road
when mini lorry (Mazda) bearing registration No. KA-
11/A-5559 dashed against him causing grievous
injuries. Despite taking treatment, he could not
recover fully. Claiming compensation, he filed claim
petition against owners and insurer of mini lorry under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter
referred to as 'MV Act').
4. On service of summons, respondents no.1
and 2 did not contest claim petition, they were placed
exparte. Respondent no.3 - insurer filed objections
denying petition averments. It admitted issuance of
insurance policy in favour of one Smt.Bharathi, but not
in favour of respondent no.1. It is further alleged that
that petition was bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder
of necessary parties. It was contended that there was
delay of six days in filing complaint and as per FIR
one Nagaraj Hanumanthappa Maruti was the accused.
But, in charge sheet Sri S.H.Nagaraj was the accused
indicating collusion of police officials with claimant.
Violation of conditions of insurance policy was also
alleged.
5. Based on pleadings tribunal framed issues
and after recording evidence held that claimant
sustained injuries in accident caused due to rash and
negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration no. KA
11/A-5559 by its driver, claimant was entitled for
compensation and insurer was liable to pay same. It
awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,49,500/- with
6 % interest. Challenging the same, insurer is in
appeal.
6. Sri M.K.Soudagar, learned counsel, for
appellant - insurer contended that admittedly driver of
offending vehicle was not having transport
endorsement on his driving licence though he was
having driving licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle. As
driver was not having valid licence, insurer was not
liable to pay compensation.
7. On the other hand, Sri. Pruthvi K.S. for respondent
no.1 and Smt. Rebeena Shivapur, for respondent no.3
submitted that ground urged by appellant was squarely covered
by decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund
Devangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited
reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663, therefore, there was no merit
in appeal.
8. Heard learned counsel for both parties, perused
impugned judgment and award. On perusal, it is seen that
appellant - insurer itself produced extract of driving licence of
driver of insured vehicle and driver was holding only licence to
drive light motor vehicle, which was valid up to 09.07.2025.
Admittedly, vehicle involved in the accident was a mini lorry
weighing less than 7500 kgs. In view of decision in Mukund
Devangan's case (supra), non-possession of endorsement on
driving licence, would not absolve liability of insurer. Hence,
there is no merit in the challenge of the insurer. Hence appeal
is dismissed.
9. The amount in deposit is ordered to be is
transmitted to tribunal for payment.
Sd/-
JUDGE
A c/ P sg *
