Karnataka High Court
Regional Manager vs Deve Gowda L P on 11 January, 2022
Bench: P S Kumar, Rajendra Badamikar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
M.F.A. No.7677/2016(MV-I)
C/W
M.F.A. No.7076/2016(MV-I)
IN M.F.A.No.7677/2016:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. DEVEGOWDA L.P.
S/O PUTTASWAMY @
PUTTASWAMY GOWDA
AGED 35 YEARS
R/AT LINGAPURA VILLAGE
GANDASI HOBLI, ARSIKERE TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 560 057
AND ALSO R/AT NO 09
1ST MAIN, MALLASANDRA
T. DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 057
SINCE DEAD, BY HIS LRs.,-
1. SMT. MANJULA H.N.
W/O LATE DEVEGOWDA L.P
AGED 39 YEARS
2. KUM. LOWKYASHREE L.D
D/O LATE DEVEGOWDA L.P
AGED 14 YEARS
2
3. MASTER VARUN L.D
S/O LATE DEVEGOWDA L.P
AGED 12 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT LINGAPURA VILLAGE
GANDASI HOBLI, ARSIKERE TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 103
AND ALSO R/AT NO.09, 1ST MAIN
MALLASANDRA, T. DASARAHALLI
BENGALURU-560 057
AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER
ORDER OF HON'BLE COURT DATED 11.08.2021
....APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . JET ROADLINES PVT. LTD.
DIRECTOR, PRASHANTH GAOGI
CHHATRAL TALUK AND
DISTRICT GANDHINAGAR
GANDHINAGAR - 382 010
GUJARAT STATE, INDIA
2 . NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
REGIONAL OFFICE NO 114
SUBBARAM COMPLEX, M.G. ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001
3 . SUNDARAMA MOTORS BANGALORE
REP. BY SRI. G. K. MAHADEVAIAH
S/O LATE KUNNEGOWDA
BEHIND GARAGESWAMI TEMPLE
GARAGESHWARI POST
T. NARASIPURA TALUK
MYSORE DISTRICT- 571 110
3
4 . THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD
REGIONAL OFFICE CORPORATION CIRCLE
BANGALORE - 560 001
.... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A.N. KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2,
SRI. C.R. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4,
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DTD. 1.2.2021,
R3-SERVED)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 03.08.2016
PASSED IN MVC NO.4217/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE X
ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BANGALORE, (SCCH-16), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION AND ETC.
*****
IN M.F.A.No.7076/2016:
BETWEEN:
REGIONAL MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REGISIONAL OFFICE
SUBHARAM COMPLEX, 144, M.G. ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
....APPELLANT
(BY SRI. A.N. KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DEVE GOWDA L.P.
S/O PUTTASWAMY @ PUTTASWAMY GOWDA
NOW AGED 35 YEARS
R/AT LINGAPURA VILLAGE
GANDASI HOBLI, ARSIKERE TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT
AND ALSO R/AT NO. 09
1ST MAIN, MALLASANDRA
T. DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 057
4
SINCE R1 IS DEAD, BY HIS LRs.-
1(A). SMT. MANJULA H.N.
W/O LATE DEVEGOWDA L.P
AGED 39 YEARS
1(B). KUM. LOWKYASHREE L.D
D/O LATE DEVEGOWDA L.P
AGED 14 YEARS
1(C). MASTER VARUN L.D
S/O LATE DEVEGOWDA L.P
AGED 12 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT LINGAPURA VILLAGE
GANDASI HOBLI, ARSIKERE TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 103
AND ALSO R/AT NO.09, 1ST MAIN
MALLASANDRA, T. DASARAHALLI
BENGALURU-560 057
AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER
ORDER OF HON'BLE COURT DATE 19.08.2021
.... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A-C),
R1(B & C) ARE MINORS REP. BY R1(A),
VIDE ORDER DTD: 12.10.2018 NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD
SUFFICIENT)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 03.08.2016 PASSED
IN MVC NO.4217/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL JUDGE,
MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, AWARDING A
COMPENSATION OF RS.2,91,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION AND ETC.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
P.S.DINESH KUMAR, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
5
JUDGMENT
These two appeals are directed against the judgment and
award dated August 3rd, 2016 passed by the X-Additional
Judge, Court of Small Causes and Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-16) ( 'Tribunal' for short) allowing
the claim petition in part and awarding compensation of
Rs.2,91,100/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from
the date of claim petition, till realization.
2. MFA No.7677/2016 is filed by the claimant and MFA
No.7076/2016 is filed by the insurer-M/s. National Insurance
Company Limited, seeking to allow the appeal and to set aside
the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be
referred as per their status before the Tribunal.
4. Heard Shri Ravishankar, learned advocate for
claimants and Shri A.N. Krishna Swamy, learned advocate for
insurer-M/s. National Insurance Company Limited.
5. One Shri. Deve Gowda L.P., sustained grievous
injuries in a road traffic accident on May 27th, 2009 while he
was working as a Cleaner along with the Driver by name
Shri.Jayaram, in the Lorry bearing No.KA.09.B.4343 for
unloading the goods at Surath. When the said lorry was
returning from Surath after unloading the goods, about at
3.30 a.m., on May 27th, 2009 in Kandari Village near Karjan
on Highway No.8, a lorry bearing No. GJ.18.U.7774 came from
back side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against
the lorry, in which the said injured was traveling. On
adjudication of the claim petition, Tribunal has awarded
Rs.2,91,100/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of
petition, till realisation.
6. While pending consideration of the injured-claimant's
appeal in MFA No.7677/2016, the appellant/claimant was
reported to have been died and hence, his Legal
Representatives viz., wife and minor children are brought on
record vide Court Order dated 19.08.2021 and they are
arrayed as Appellants No.1 to 3 in MFA No.7677/2016 and as
Respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(c) in MFA No.7076/2016.
7. Learned Advocate for the appellants-claimants
submitted that the original claimant passed away in June,
2021, during pendency of these appeals.
8. Sri. A.N. Krishna Swamy, learned Advocate for the
Insurer, has raised a preliminary objection with regard to
maintainability of the appeal filed by the claimant, contending
that the Legal Representatives of an injured claimant cannot
prosecute the appeal, as held in Paragraph-12 of the decision
in Kannamma Vs. Deputy General Manager [ILR 1990
KAR 4300]. Arguing in support of his appeal, Shri. A.N.
Krishna Swamy submitted that, this Court has been
consistently granting 6% interest in the cases of Motor Vehicle
Accident Claims. He further submitted that, the Tribunal erred
in directing the insurer to satisfy the award, because the
Driving Licence held by the driver of the insured lorry was a
fake one.
9. Admittedly, the claim petition was filed by the
Injured-Claimant Shri. Deve Gowda. The accident has
occurred on May 27th, 2009. In the accident, the claimant
sustained injuries and hence, he filed the instant claim
petition. The Tribunal on consideration of the material on
record, has awarded Rs.2,91,000/- as compensation along
with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of
petition, till realization.
10, In view of the Law declared in Kannamma's case
(supra), Shri. A.N. Krishna Swamy is right in his submission
that, the Legal Representative/s of the injured-claimant cannot
prosecute the claim.
11. So far as the contentions urged by Shri. A.N.
Krishna Swamy with regard to liability of the insurer are
concerned, in view of the Law laid down in Pappu and
Others Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba and Another [(2018) 3
SCC 208], in substance, what is canvassed before us is that,
the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and
effective Driving Licence as on the date of the accident in
question. This aspect is covered by the decision in Pappu's
case (supra).
12. Following the said decisions cited supra, we are
inclined to hold that, the insurer is liable to indemnify the
onus with liberty to recover the same from the insured, in the
same proceedings.
13. Shri. A.N. Krishna Swamy is also right in his
submission that, this Court has been consistently granting 6%
interest in Motor Vehicles Accident Claims and Compensation
cases. With regard to the licence is concerned, Shri. A.N.
Krishnaswamy places reliance on Paragraph-11 in Pappu's
case (supra) and argued that the insurer is entitled to take a
contention that the person, who was driving the vehicle did not
possess a valid and effective Driving Licence, then the onus
shall be upon the Insurance Company only after the owner of
the offending vehicle pleads and proves that the driver of the
offending vehicle was authorized to drive. He submitted that,
in the case on hand, the owner of the vehicle-M/s. Jet Road
Lines Private Limited, has remained ex-parte before the
Tribunal. Therefore, he submits that, in the event this Court
were to hold that the insurer is liable to satisfy the award, the
insurer may be granted liberty to recover that amount from
the owner, in the same proceedings.
14. We have perused Ex.R6 and Ex.R8 and the photo
copy of the licence of the driver of the offending vehicle. The
number mentioned in the licence is WB-012005538034 and
the endorsement issued by the Licencing Authority as per
Ex.R8 is also in respect of the very same Driving Licence
number, wherein it is stated that, no such Driving Licence was
issued by the Licence Issuing Authority. Therefore, the
contention of the learned Advocate for the claimant that,
'there was difference in number', is factually un-founded.
15. We have carefully considered the authority in
Puppu's case (supra) and hold that, Shri. A.N. Krishna Sway's
argument has some force. His argument was countered by the
learned Advocate for the claimant stating that, the insurer
had obtained an endorsement dated June 2nd, 2016 at Ex.R8
and hence the Driving Licence bearing No.WB-012005538034
was not issued from the Licencing Authority. But, the Driving
Licence, for which they had made an application dated June
6th, 2016 as per Ex.-R6 was in respect of DL.No.WB-
012005538034. Even if we accept the argument of the
learned Advocate for the appellant-Insurer that the
endorsement given by the Licencing Authority is not in respect
of the Driving Licence belonging to the driver, the fact
remains that it is the case of the insurer that the driver did not
posses valid Driving Licence and the owner of the offending
vehicle has not discharged his burden by producing the Driving
Licence. Therefore, in our considered view, the insurer is
entitled to recover the compensation amount from the owner,
in the same proceedings.
16. In view of the above the following:
ORDER
(i) The claimant's appeal in MFA No.7677/2016 is
dismissed.
(ii) The Insurer's appeal in MFA No.7076/2016 is
allowed in part. The impugned judgment and
award dated August 3rd, 2016 passed by the
Tribunal in MVC No.4217/2016 is modified by
holding that, the claimants are entitled for a
compensation of Rs.2,91,100/- with interest at
6% p.a., from the date of filing claim petition till
the date of deposit.
(iii) The insurer is held liable to make the payment
with liberty to recover the same from the owner
of the offending vehicle, by executing decree in
this proceedings.
The amount in deposit shall be transferred to the
concerned Tribunal for disbursement, in accordance
with law.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
KGR*
