Branch Manager vs Sanjeeva Poojary
2021 Latest Caselaw 3715 Kant

                       1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

   DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021

                    BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD

           MFA No.384 OF 2016(MV)

BETWEEN:

BRANCH MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
KUNDAPURA BRANCH
KUNDAPURA
REPRESENTED BY
ASSISTANT MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE
NO.144, 1ST FLOOR
SHUBHARAM COMPLEX
M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-1.
                                    ...APPELLANT

(BY SMT. MANJULA N TEJASWI, ADV.)

AND

1 . SANJEEVA POOJARY
    S/O KUSTA POOJARY
    AGE ABOUT 48 YEARS
    R/O NARASIBETTU, VITTALVADI
    VADER HOBLI VILLAGE
    KUNDAPURA TALUK-576201.
                            2



2 . K.PRADEEP
    S/O NAGU POOJARY
    AGE MAJOR
    R/O HALTHUR, KELABETTU
    ULTHUR VILLAGE
    KUNDAPURA TALUK-576201.

                                       ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. K CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADV. FOR R1:
R2 SERVED)

     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:09-07-
2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.414/2013 ON THE FILE OF
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR
VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KUNDAPURA,
AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.80,180/- WITH
INTEREST @ 6% FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

     THIS MFA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                      JUDGMENT

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act',

for short) has been filed by the Insurance Company

being aggrieved by the judgment dated 9.7.2015

passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Addl. Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Kundapura in MVC

414/2013.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 8.8.2012, the claimant was

proceeding from his house Vaderhobli to Kundapur

City in his bicycle near Gandhi Maidan, Opp. to Mithun

Complex, at that time, autorickshaw bearing

registration No.KA-20-A-7436 being driven by its

driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent

manner, dashed to the claimant. As a result of the

aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous

injuries and was hospitalized.

3. The claimant filed a petition under Section

166 of the Act seeking compensation. It was pleaded

that he spent huge amount towards medical

expenses, conveyance, etc. It was further pleaded

that the accident occurred purely on account of the

rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by

its driver.

4. On service of notice, the respondent No.2

appeared through counsel and filed written statement

in which the averments made in the petition were

denied. The respondent No.2 was placed exparte.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,

the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter

recorded the evidence. The claimant himself was

examined as PW-1 and got exhibited documents

namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. On behalf of the respondents,

one witness was examined as RW-1 and got exhibited

documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R4. The Claims

Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held

that the accident took place on account of rash and

negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver,

as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries.

The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled

to a compensation of Rs.80,180/- along with interest

at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the Insurance

Company to deposit the compensation amount along

with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been

filed.

6. The learned counsel for the Insurance

Company has contended that as on the date of

accident the driver of the offending vehicle was having

driving licence to drive LMV (Non-transport), but he

was driving the transport vehicle. Since the insured

has violated the policy conditions, the Insurance

Company is not liable to pay compensation. The

Tribunal is not justified in fastening the liability on the

Insurance Company. Hence, she sought for allowing

the appeal.

7. The learned counsel for the claimant has

contended that even though the driver of the

offending vehicle was having driving licence to drive

LMV (Non-transport) and 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 (2017) 14

SCC 663, the Insurance Company is liable to pay

compensation to the claimant. Therefore, the Tribunal

has rightly fastened the liability on the Insurance

Company. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the

appeal.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties

and perused the records.

9. It is not in dispute that the claimant has

sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred

due to rash and negligent driving of the offending

vehicle by its driver.

As on the date of the accident, the driver of the

offending vehicle was having driving licence to drive

LMV (Non-transport) but he was driving the transport

vehicle. As per the decision of the Apex Court in the

case of MUKUND DEWANGAN (supra), a person

holding driving licence to drive LMV (Non-Transport)

can also drive transport vehicle, the unladen weight of

which does not exceed 7500 kgs. The unladen weight

of the vehicle involved in the accident is less than

7500 kgs.

In view of the above decision of the Apex Court,

it is held that the driver of the offending vehicle was

having valid driving licence as on the date of the

accident. Therefore, the Insurance Company is liable

to pay compensation. The Tribunal has rightly

fastened the liability on the Insurance Company.

There is no error in the said finding of the Tribunal.

10. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

The amount in deposit before this court is

ordered to be transferred to the Tribunal forthwith.

Sd/-

JUDGE

DM