Umesh Naika vs B T Shivakumara
2021 Latest Caselaw 402 Kant

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 402 Kant
Judgement Date : 7 January, 2021

Karnataka High Court

Umesh Naika vs B T Shivakumara on 7 January, 2021

Author: S R.Krishna Kumar

                             1




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021

                         BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.5945/2018(MV-I)
BETWEEN:

UMESH NAIKA
S/O BHIMA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT MASJID ROAD, MALAVAGOPPA
SHIVAMOGGA-577 204
                                          ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K.V. SATEESHCHANDRA, ADV.)

AND:

1.     B T SHIVAKUMARA
       S/O THIMMAIAH
       AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
       R/AT 1ST CROSS,VIDYANAGAR
       SHIVAMOGGA-577 201

2.     IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL
       INSURANCE CO LTD.,
       SHASHI KIRAN BUILDING,
       1ST FLOOR OPP: OM GANESH
       TRACTORS SHANKAR MATH ROAD,
       SHIVAMOGGA-577 201
                                       ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. E.I.SANMATHI, ADV. FOR R-2
    R-1 SERVED,UNREPRESENTED)

      THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 14.12.2017
PASSED IN MVC NO. 233/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT - 8 SHIVAMOGGA,
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.2, 09, 000/- WITH INTEREST
@ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.

     THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
                                    2




                            JUDGMENT

This appeal is directed against the impugned

judgment and award dated 14.12.2017 passed in MVC

No.233/2015 by the II Addl.Senior Civil Judge &

Addl.MACT (for short 'the Tribunal'), Shivamogga, whereby

the Tribunal awarded compensation in a sum of

Rs.2,09,000/- together with interest at 6% p.a. in favour of

respondent No.1 - claimant towards the injuries sustained

by him in a road traffic accident that occurred on

03.11.2014.

2. By the impugned judgment and award, the

Tribunal absolved the Insurance company of its liability to

pay compensation and fastened the entire liability to pay

compensation upon the owner of the offending vehicle, who

is before this Court by way of the present appeal.

3. Heard the learned counsel for appellant, learned

counsel for the Insurance company and perused the

material on record.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

findings recorded by the Tribunal exonerating the Insurance

company of its liability to pay compensation and fastening

the entire liability on the appellant-owner of the offending

vehicle, is contrary to the decision of this Court in the case

of Sri.Rameshgowda @ Ramakrishnegowda & Anr. vs.

Sri.Sathish & Anr. - MFA No.9518 of 2915 c/w MFA

No.7646/2015 Dated 18.03.2019. It is therefore submitted

that the impugned judgment and award passed by the

Tribunal deserves to be set aside and the entire liability be

fastened upon the Insurance company.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance

company would support the impugned judgment and award

and prays for dismissal of the appeal. In support of his

contention, he placed reliance upon the decision of the

Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs. New India

Assurance Co., Ltd., & Others - 2014 ACJ 2421.

6. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for

appellant, in the case of Rameshgowda (supra), this Court

held as under:-

"18. The second point for consideration is, as to whether, the insurance company could avoid indemnifying the insured merely because the vehicle in respect of which a policy has been issued was not registered on the date of the accident. The fact that the offending vehicle was insured by the insurance company has been admitted by the insurance company even in its written statement. The only contention is that what was insured was the vehicle bearing Engine and Chassis Nos.D1711649 and C- 19316 respectively but it was not registered. The period of insurance is from 12.30 p.m. on 01.04.2013 to midnight of 31.03.2014. The accident occurred on 10.05.2013. Merely because the said vehicle did not have a registration number, cannot be a ground for avoiding the liability by the insurance company. The fact that Ex.R-1 proves that a policy was issued in respect of the said vehicle, wherein a particular Engine and chassis number was noted in the policy is sufficient to hold that the insured must be indemnified by the insurer. Subsequently the said vehicle may have been registered. But the fact that on the date of the accident, it did not bear Registration number is not a reason to avoid liability by the insurance company. In the circumstances, we

answer point No.2 also against the insurance company and in favour of the claimants".

7. In view of the aforesaid decision of this Court, I

am of the considered opinion that the Tribunal committed

an error in absolving the Insurance company to pay

compensation and fastening the entire liability on the

owner of the offending vehicle - appellant herein.

8. In the result, I pass the following:-

ORDER

(i) Appeal is partly allowed.

(ii) The impugned judgment and award is hereby

modified.

(iii) It is held that respondent No.2-Insurance

company is liable to pay compensation awarded by the