The Branch Manager vs Yamanappa S/O Ramappa Jalageri
2022 Latest Caselaw 1943 Kant

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   DHARWAD BENCH

      DATED THIS THE 08 T H DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                        BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

              M.F.A. No.103178/2017 (MV)

BET WEEN

THE B RANCH MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
KALADGI ROAD, MELLIG ER I COMPLE X,
BAGALKOT, T HROUGH ITS
THE DIV IS IONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
DIV IS IONAL OFFICE
RAMDEV GALLI, B ELAGAVI,
REPRES ENTED BY ITS
DULY SIGNED AU THORITY
ADMINISTRAT IVE OFFICER.
                                        ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.NAGANGO UNDA R.KUPPELURU , ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    YAMANAPPA S/O RAMAPPA JALAGERI,
      AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTU RE, NOW NILL
      R/O: GADDANAKERI, T Q AND DIST: B AGALKOT.

2.    MAHANTESH S/O YALGU RDAPPA HA L ANNAVAR,
      AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: BU SINESS,
      R/O: PL OT No.91A, SECTOR No.42,
      NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT .
      (OWNER OF THE AU TO RICKSHAW No.KA-29/8 163)

                                        ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.C.M.HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
(R2 SERVED)
                                     2




      THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEA L IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEH ICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST
THE J UDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.04.2 017 PASS ED IN
MVC No.546/ 2013 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMB ER, MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIB UNAL-III, BAGALKOT, AWARDIN G
COMPENSATION O F ` 1,11,000/- WIT H INTER EST AT 8%
P.A. FROM THE DAT E OF PETIT ION TILL ITS DEP OS IT.

    THIS APPEA L COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                             JUDGMENT

This app eal has been filed by the insurer of the

offending autorickshaw b earing registration No.KA-29/

8163 challeng ing the judgment and award dated

22.04.2017 p assed by the Motor Accid ent Claims

Tribunal-III, Bag alkot (hereinafter referred to as the

'Tribunal', for brevity) in MVC No.546/2013 insofar as

it relates to saddling the liability to pay the

compensation on the appellant-insurer.

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.546/2013

claiming compensation from the owner and insurer of

the offending autorickshaw bearing registration

No.KA-29/8163 contending that on 03.12.2011 when

he was traveling in the offending autorickshaw, the

driver of the autorickshaw who was driving the

vehicle in a rash and negligent manner dashed the

said vehicle against another vehicle bearing

registration No.KA-29/7402 and caused the accident.

In the said accident, the claimant had suffered

grievous injuries and he was admitted to

Dr.Daddennavar Hospital, Bagalkot. It is under these

circumstances, he had filed a claim petition under

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for

short, the 'Act') which was partly allowed by the

Tribunal and a compensation of `1,11,000/- was

awarded with interest at 8% per annum from the date

of petition till realization. The 2 n d respondent-insurer

of the offending vehicle was directed to deposit the

compensation amount. Being aggrieved by the

judgment and award insofar as it relates to saddling

the liability to pay the compensation, the insurer is

before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the insurer submits

that the driver of the offending autorickshaw did not

have valid and effective driving licence as on the

date of accident. He submits that he had no valid

permit as on the date of accident and therefore the

Tribunal was not justified in saddling the liability to

pay the compensation on the insurer having regard to

the fact that the offending vehicle was used in

violation of the terms and conditions of the policy

issued by the insurer.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for

the claimant submits that the driver of the offending

autorickshaw was holding a Light Motor Vehicle (non-

transport) driving licence and therefore in view of 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 Tribunal was justified in saddling the liability on

the insurer of the autorickshaw. He also submits that

the permit which was issued by the competent

authority in respect of the offending autorickshaw

was subsequently renewed and therefore there was

no violation of the terms and conditions of the policy

and the liability of the Insurance Company cannot be

exonerated. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the

appeal.

6. I have carefully considered the arguments

addressed on both sides and also perused the

material available on record.

7. It is not in dispute that the offending

autorickshaw bearing registration No.KA-29/8163 was

involved in the road traffic accident that had taken

place on 03.12.2011 in which the claimant had

suffered injuries. It is also not in dispute that the

said autorickshaw was duly covered with the

insurance policy issued by the appellant-insurer

which was valid as on the date of accident. As rightly

contended by the learned counsel for the claimant

having regard to the undisputed fact that the driver

of the offending autorickshaw was holding a LMV

(non-transport) driving licence which was valid as on

the date of accident in view of the judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund

Dewangan, the Tribunal is fully justified in saddling

the liability to pay the compensation on the insurer

of the offending vehicle. Further it is also not in

dispute that the offending vehicle was issued with a

permit by the competent authority and though the

said permit had expired as on the date of accident,

admittedly the same was renewed thereafterwards.

Under the circumstances, I do not find any illegality

or irregularity in the judgment and award passed by

the Tribunal saddling the liability to pay the

compensation to the claimant, on the insurer of the

offending vehicle. Accordingly, the appeal does not

merit consideration and the same is dismissed.

The amount in deposit is directed to be

transferred to the Tribunal for the purpose of

disbursement.

Sd/-

JUDGE

CLK