Karnataka High Court
National Insurance Co Ltd vs Chikkannanaika on 10 December, 2021
Bench: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1340 OF 2017 (MV)
BETWEEN:
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
II FLOOR, NO.67/14 (F-10)
NEW SHIVAJI RAO ROAD,
KHILLE MOHALLA, MYSURU-570024
REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. H.R.RENUKA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. CHIKKANNANAIKA
S/O LATE NINGANAIKA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/O KOTTANAHALLI VILLAGE
HULLAHALLI HOBLI,
NANJANGUD TALUK
2. MAHADEVANAIKA
S/O LATE NINGANAIKA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
NO.149, TONDAVADI VILLAGE
GUNDLUPET TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.B.N.MANJULA FOR SRI.R.C.NAGARAJ,
ADV., FOR R1)
2
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.6.2016
PASSED IN MVC NO.132/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., NANJANGUD, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.3,78,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE
RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
DEPOSIT.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the insurance company under
Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, challenging the
judgment and award passed by the MACT., Nanjanjud, in
MVC No.132/2014 on 29.06.2016, whereby the Tribunal has
fastened the liability on the insurance company.
2. Brief facts of the case are that; on 24.08.2014 at
about 1.00 pm., the claimant was proceeding in a Tata Ace
Magic vehicle bearing registration No.KA-10-7081 belonging
to the first respondent from Nanjangud side on Mysuru-Ooty
road. When they were near Arepura gate, at that time,
respondent No.1 drove the said vehicle in a high speed, rash
and negligent manner and dashed to the car going in front of
them, due to which the vehicle bearing registration
No.KA-10-7081 toppled. Due to that impact, the claimant
sustained grievous injuries. Immediately thereafter, he has
been shifted to K.R.Hospital, Mysuru and further shifted to
JSS Hospital, Mysuru wherein he was treated as inpatient
and undergone surgery. After recovery from the injuries, the
claimant has filed the claim petition before the Tribunal
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
3. On service of summons, respondent Nos.1 and 2
appeared before the Tribunal through their respective
counsel. Respondent No.1 has not filed any statement of
objections. Respondent No.2 filed objection statement and
denied the petition averments. They have also taken the
contention that the driver of the offending vehicle was not
having a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. On
the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has
framed the following issues:
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, he sustained
injuries in a Road Traffic Accident occurred on
24.8.2014 at about 1.00 pm., in front of Arepura
gate, near Forest Nursery, Mysuru-Ooty Main
Road, due to rash and negligent manner of
driving of Tat Magic vehicle bearing its
Reg No.KA-10-7081, by the 1st respondent?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, how much and from
whom?
3. What order or award?
4. To prove the case, the claimant was examined
himself as PW1 and they have examined Dr.T.S.Vasan as
PW2 and produced 86 documents. The respondents have
examined Sri.B.Kumara as RW1 and produced the driving
licence extract as Ex.R1.
5. On appreciation of the oral and documentary
evidence, the Tribunal has granted compensation of
Rs.3,78,000/- with interest at 6% per annum, fastening the
liability on the insurance company.
6. Being aggrieved by the same, the insurance
company has filed this appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor
Vehicles Act.
7. Smt.Renuka H.R, learned counsel appearing for
the insurance company has contended that as on the date of
accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a
driving licence to drive the light motor vehicle-non transport,
but he was driving a transport vehicle. Hence, the insurance
company is not liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal
has erred in fastening the liability on the insurance company.
Hence, she sought for allowing the appeal.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
claimant has contended that even though the driver of the
offending vehicle was having licence to drive the light motor
vehicle - non transport, but he was driving the transport
vehicle. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case
of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company
Limited reported in AIR 2017 SC 3668, the insurance
company is liable to pay the compensation. Hence, he sought
for dismissal of the appeal.
9. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
Perused the judgment and award and the original records.
10. It is not in dispute that the claimant has suffered
the injuries in the road traffic accident on 24.08.2014, due to
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the TATA Ace Magic
vehicle bearing registration No.KA-10-7081. It is also not in
dispute that as on the date of the accident, the driver of the
offending vehicle was holding the driving licence to drive the
light motor vehicle - non transport. But, he was driving the
transport vehicle. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court
in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra), the driver holding
light motor vehicle licence can drive all vehicles of class
including the transport vehicle, if unladen weight does not
exceed 7500 Kgs. In the case on hand the unladen weight is
less than 7500 Kgs. Therefore, the driver of the offending
vehicle was having a valid and effective driving licence.
11. Therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay
the compensation. There is no error in the finding given by
the Tribunal. Hence, I decline to interfere with the judgment
and award passed by the Tribunal.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
The amount in deposit before this Court is transferred
to the Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
GH
