Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Smt.Gayatri W/O Vithalrao Adake on 2 February, 2022
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2 N D DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
M.F.A. No.100669/2016 (MV)
BET WEEN
THE DIV IS IONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LT D.,
HAVING ITS OFF ICE AT RAMDEV GALLI,
BELAGAVI, NOW REP.B Y ITS
DEPU TY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE ,
ARIHANT PLAZ A, KUSU GAL ROAD,
HU BB ALLI-580 029.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI GU NDI SU RESH SHARANAPP A, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SMT.GAYATRI W/O VIT HALRAO ADAK E,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOU SEHOLD WORK,
R/O VADAGAON, BELAGAV I.
2. SHRI RAHU L S/O VITHAL ADAKE,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O PATWARDHAN LAY OUT ,
VADAGAON, B ELAGAVI.
3. THE MANAGER,
B AJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSU RANCE CO.LTD.,
HAVING IT S OFFICE AT CLU B ROAD,
B ELAGAVI.
4. MR.NINGAPPA H.GOUDAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICU LTU RE,
R/O CHAWADAL, TQ: SAVANU R,
DIST: HAVER I.
5. SMT.HEMALATA W/O PRALHAD MADI,
2
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: HOU SEWIFE,
R/O GOKU L ROAD, HUB BALLI.
6. SMT.VANI VADIRAJ KATT I,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOU SEWIFE,
R/O 9 T H CROSS, IS SRO LAYOU T,
B ENGALU RU.
7. SMT.CHAYA W/O VIJAYKUMAR MOKASHI,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: HOU SEWIFE,
R/O 1 S T CROSS, KHU DANPU R,
B ENGALU RU.
8. GOURI W/O RAMNAND KULKARNI,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOU SEWIFE,
R/O SAIRAJ RES ID ENCY, 2 N D FLOOR,
TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.K.KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
NOTICE TO R1, R2, R4, R5, R6 AND R7 SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEA L IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEH ICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST
THE J UDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.11.2 015 PASS ED IN
MVC No.1235/ 2012 ON T HE F IL E OF T HE V I ADDIT IONAL
DISTR ICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE A ND ADDITIONAL MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBU NAL, B ELAGAVI, AWARDING T HE
COMPENSATION O F ` 1,12,50 0/- ALONG WITH INTER ES T AT
THE RAT E OF 9% P.A. FROM 18.06.2012 T ILL R EALIZATION,
EXCLUDING THE PERIOD FR OM 18.09.2015 TO 09.11.2015,
WHICH SHAL L B E DEPOS IT ED B EFORE THE TR IB U NAL,
WITH IN ONE MON TH FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER.
THIS APPEA L COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This app eal is filed by the insurer of the offending
vehicle challenging the liability to pay the
compensation amount saddled on it by the VI Addl.
District and Sessions Judge and Addl. M.A.C.T.,
Belagavi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal', for
brevity) in MVC No.1235/2012 vide its judgment and
award dated 21.11.2015.
2. Though this appeal is listed for orders, with
the consent of the learned counsels appearing for the
parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal. The
parties to this appeal are referred to by their
rankings assigned to them before the Tribunal for the
sake of convenience.
3. Brief facts of the case that would be
relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal
are:
The claimant had filed MVC No.1235/2012 under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for
short, the 'Act') claiming compensation of
`8,00,000/- with interest with regard to the death of
her father namely Vadiraj Hanamantacharya Kalli in
the road traffic accident that had taken place on
02.05.2011. It is the case of the claimants that on
02.05.2011 when she was traveling along with her
father in the car bearing registration No.KA-22/N-253
owned by the 1 s t respondent and insured by the 2 n d
respondent before the Tribunal, the tractor and
trailer bearing registration No.KA-27/TA-3295 and
KA-27/TA-3296 which was driven in a rash and
negligent manner dashed against the car and caused
the accident and as a result Vadiraj
Hanamantacharya Kalli died in the spot. The said
claim petition was partly allowed by the Tribunal and
a compensation of `2,25,000/- was awarded with
interest at 9% per annum. The 4 t h respondent-insurer
was held liable to deposit the compensation amount.
Being aggrieved by the liability saddled on the
insurer, the present appeal is filed.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that the driver of the tractor trailer did not possess
valid and effective licence as on the date of accident.
He submits that the driver of the offending vehicle
had Light Motor Vehicle (non-transport) licence and
therefore the Tribunal was not justified in saddling
the liability on the insurer of the tractor trailer to
indemnify the owner of offending vehicle.
5. I have carefully appreciated the arguments
addressed on both sides and also perused the
material available on record.
6. The accident in question is not in dispute,
so also the involvement of the offending tractor
trailer bearing registration No.KA-27/TA-3295 and
KA-27/TA-3296 in the said accident is not in dispute.
It is also not in dispute that the father of the
claimant Vadiraj Hanamantacharya Kalli had died
having regard to the injuries sustained by him in the
accident. The offending tractor trailer had a valid
insurance policy as on the date of the accident which
was issued by the appellant-insurer. The liability to
pay the compensation is disputed by the insurer only
on the ground that the driver of the offending tractor
trailer did not possess valid and effective driving
licence to drive the tractor as on the date of
accident. Learned counsel for the insurer has
submitted that the driver of the offending vehicle
possessed the Light Motor Vehicle (non-transport)
licence which was valid as on the date of accident.
Under the circumstances having regard to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Mukund Dewangan V/s Oriental Insurance
Company Limited reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663,
the order passed by the Tribunal insofar as it relates
to saddling the liability on the insurer of the
offending tractor trailer cannot be found fault with.
Therefore, I see no merit in this appeal. Accordingly,
the appeal is dismissed.
The amount in deposit is directed to be
transferred to the Tribunal for the purpose of
disbursement.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CLK
