The Branch Manager vs Gnyandevi W/O Shivaraj Abbende ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3318 Kant

                                  1



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   KALABURAGI BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

                                BEFORE

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

              REVIEW PETITION NO.200035/2021
                            IN
                  MFA No.200565/2018 (MV)


BETWEEN:

The Branch Manager
New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Branch Sindol Complex,
Near Railway Station,
Bidar-585401
                                          ... Review Petitioner

(By Smt. Shashikala Jagirdar, Advocate)

AND:

1. Smt. Gnyandevi
   W/o Shivaraj Abbende
   Caste: S.T. (Gond)
   Aged about 38 years
   Occ: Household

2. Sunil Kumar
   S/o Late Shivaraj Abbende
   Aged about 17 years
   Occ: Student, Minor

3. Anil Kumar
   S/o Late Shivaraj Abbende
   Aged about 15 years
   Occ: Student, Minor
                                     2



4. Nandini
   D/o Late Shivaraj Abbende
   Aged about 7 years
   Occ: Student, Minor

5. Gundappa
   S/o Prabhagonda Abbende
   Aged about 68 years, Occ: Nil

6. Gangamma W/o Gundappa Abbende
   Aged about 63 years, Occ: Nil

   Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are minors
   U/g of respondent No.1

   All are R/o Chimkod, Tq. & Dist. Bidar

7. Vithal S/o Hanmanthappa
   Aged about 41 years
   Occ: Owner-cum-driver of Bajaj
   Auto bearing No.KA-38/5301
   R/o village Chimkod
   Tq. & Dist Bidar-585401
                                                        ... Respondents

(By Sri Santosh Biradar, Advocate for R1 to R6;
 Notice to R7 dispensed with vide order dated 25.02.2022)

        This Review Petition is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with
Section 114 of CPC, praying to call for the records and review the final
order dated 26.02.2020 passed in MFA No.200565/2018 and to modify
the final order in terms of the grounds urged on the point of permit
violation.

        This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the
following:

                               ORDER

This review petition is directed against the impugned

judgment dated 26.02.2020 passed in MFA No.200565/2018

whereby the appeal filed by respondent Nos.1 to 6 - claimants

was allowed in part by this Court by awarding additional

enhanced compensation.

2. The sole grievance of the review petitioner -

Insurance Company is that by oversight and inadvertence, this

Court has come to the conclusion that the driver of the

offending insured vehicle did not possess a valid and effective

driving licence which is contrary to the material on record

which indicates that the offending vehicle did not possess a

valid and effective permit as on the date of the accident.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants,

while not disputing that the issue involved in the appeal was

not with regard to the licence but with regard to the permit,

places reliance upon the decision of this Court in the cases of

United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Chandamma

& others reported in ILR 2000 KAR 1302 and Abdul Rouf

vs. Megharaj Mehdole and others passed in MFA

No.201648/2015 & connected matters dated 26.11.2020

and that the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mukund

Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and

others reported in (2016) 4 SCC 298 referred to in the

impugned judgment was not applicable to the facts of the

instant case, submits that issue with regard to the liability of

the Insurance Company to pay compensation in relation to the

offending vehicle traveling beyond the area permitted under

the permit is also squarely covered by the decision of the

Division Bench of this Court in Chandamma's case supra as

well as in Abdul Rouf's case supra. It is therefore submitted

by the learned counsel for the claimants that except modifying

the factual incorrect statements made in the impugned

judgment and award as stated supra, the review petition is

liable to be dismissed.

4. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for

both sides, due to oversight and inadvertence, instead of

referring to the offending vehicle not having a permit to travel

beyond the limits permitted under the permit, this Court has

referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Mukund

Dewangan's case in relation to the driver of the vehicle

possessing valid and effective driving licence. Under these

circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the present

review petition deserves to be disposed of by clarifying that

the issue involved in the appeal was in relation to the

offending vehicle traveling in an area beyond permissible

limits and not in relation to lack of valid and effective driving

licence of the driver of the offending vehicle. It is also made

clear that the decision of the Apex Court in Mukund

Dewangan's case is not applicable to the facts involved in the

appeal while the decisions of this Court in Chandamma's

case and Abdul Rouf's case are applicable to the facts of the

case on hand.

5. Subject to the aforesaid observations and

directions, review petition stands disposed of without

interfering with the impugned judgment and award.

Sd/-

JUDGE

swk