The Divisional Manager vs Ravi S/O Mallappa Badiger
2022 Latest Caselaw 10106 Kant

                           1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  DHARWAD BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF JULY, 2022

                       BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

             M.F.A. NO.23110/2013 (MV-I)

BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
2ND FLOOR MADIWLE ARCADE, BELGAUM,
NOW REP/BY BALAKRISHNA K. NAYAK,
ASSISTANT MANAGER,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
REGIONAL OFFICE, SUMANGALA COMPLEX,
OPP.HDMC, LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBLI.
                                           ...APPELLANT
(BY SHRI S.S.KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE)

AND:
1.     SHRI RAVI S/O MALLAPPA BADIGER
       AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE COOLIE,
       R/O.NAGANUR, TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.

2.     SHRI SIDDAPPA S/O SHETTEPPA PUJERI
       AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
       R/O.AJJANAKATTI, TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.

                                  ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SANJAY S.KATAGERI, ADVOCATE FOR R.1)
(BY SHRI GIRISH HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R.2)

     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:27-04-
2013, PASSED IN MVC.NO.1523/2011 ON THE FILE OF
                                2




THE II-ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL.
M.A.C.T, GOKAK, AWARDING THE COMPENSAITON OF
RS.20,000/-WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A.,
FROM THE DATE OF PEITTION TILL REALISATION.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                        JUDGMENT

This appeal is directed against the judgment and

award passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and

Additional M.A.C.T., Gokak in MVC.No.1523/2011 dated

27.04.2013 by the Insurance Company. This appeal is

founded on the ground of excessive compensation

awarded by the tribunal.

2. Though this matter is listed for admission, with

consent of learned counsel for both sides, matter is

taken up for final disposal.

3. Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per

their status before the tribunal.

4. Brief facts of the case is as under:

On 17.05.2011 one Sidagouda S/o Bhimagouda

Patil was proceeding along with claimant by name-Ravi

Mallappa Badiger by walk from his house towards

Naganur bus-stand. While he was walking on the left

side of the Mudalagi-Gokak road and when he reached

near Gadadi Farm house school, at about 4:00 p.m, an

ambassador car bearing Reg.No.KA.22/C-6699 came

from their hind side in a rash and negligent manner so

as to endanger human life and safety, lost control over

the vehicle and dashed against Shri Siddagouda

Bhimagouda Patil and claimant-Shri Ravi Mallappa

Badiger. Due to the accident, the Siddagouda

Bhimagouda Patil and claimant-Ravi Mallappa Badiger,

suffered serious injuries and claimant's friend

Siddagouda Bhimagouda Patil died on the spot whereas,

claimant-Ravi Mallappa Badiger was taken to the

hospital for treatment. Claimant was aged 21 years and

was working as an agricultural coolie by earning

Rs.6,000/- per month. He claims to have spent

Rs.25,000/- towards medical bills and other

miscellaneous expenses. He is permanently disability

has lost his future earning capacity. Thereby, he filed

the claim petition seeking compensation.

5. On issuance of notice, respondent No.1, who

is the owner of car did not represent and hence, was

placed exparte. Respondent No.2-Insurer filed detailed

statement of objections denying the occurrence of

accident inter-alia contending that the driver of the car

was not holding a valid and effective driving license and

that the compensation claimed is exorbitant and liability

would be in terms of the conditions of the policy. On the

basis of these pleadings, he sought for dismissal of the

claim petition.

6. On the basis of pleadings, the tribunal has

framed relevant issues for consideration.

7. In order to substantiate the issues and to

establish the case, the claimant got examined himself as

PW.2 and got marked documents as Exs.P.1 to P.9 and

closed their evidence whereas, the respondents did not

adduce any evidence. However, they got marked two

documents namely certified copies of statement of PW.3

before the police and the insurance policy as Exs.R.1

and R.2.

8. On the basis of material evidence both oral

and documentary and on hearing the arguments of

learned counsel appearing for both the parties, the

tribunal awarded the global compensation of

Rs.20,000/- to the claimant with interest @ 6% p.a.

from the date of petition till realization and held

respondent Nos.1 and 2 to be jointly and severally liable

and directed respondent No.2-Insurance Company to

deposit the award amount.

9. Being aggrieved by the compensation

awarded, the insurance company has preferred this

appeal challenging the judgment and award of the

tribunal. The learned counsel Sri Sharanappa S. Koliwad

appearing on behalf of Insurance Company vehemently

contends that the Judgment and Award passed by the

Tribunal is contrary, illegal and perverse. He also

contends that the Tribunal has mechanically passed the

order without considering the material evidence on

record and contrary to the evidence and documents

produced. The Tribunal has assessed the income and

awarded compensation which is erroneous and the same

requires to be set aside.

10. Learned counsel Sri Sharanappa S. Koliwad

vehemently contends that the driver of offending vehicle

did not possess a valid and effecting driving licence as

on the date of occurrence of accident i.e. on

17.05.2011. Hence, the liability fastened on the Insurer

is erroneous, illegal and arbitrary, it has to be set

aside, if at all any liability arising the same will have to

be fastened on the owner of the offending vehicle and

not on the Insurer. Learned counsel also vehemently

contends that the Tribunal has committed a gross error

in appreciating Ex.P.21, the driving licence of driver of

offending vehicle, per se on a primary look through the

naked eye it is seen that the licence which was issued in

favour of the driver of the offending vehicle was issued

in the year 1998, it is to be assumed on 23.10.1998.

The 2nd page of driving licence shows that the licence

came to be renewed on 21.05.2011 and to be valid till

20.05.2016 for the purpose of driving motorcycle other

than transport vehicles and also to drive transport

vehicles for a period from 21.05.2011 to 20.05.2014.

On the basis of this Ex.P.21, it is the contention of

learned counsel for the Insurer that as on the date of

occurrence of accident i.e., 17.05.2011, the driver of

the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and

effective driving licence. Therefore, the Insurance

Company cannot be fastened with liability, same will

have to be shifted on the owner of the offending vehicle.

11. To controvert the statement made by the

learned counsel for the Insurer, the learned counsel for

claimant vehemently contends that the issuance of

licence to driver of the offending vehicle is admittedly

dated 23.10.1998 and since the licence issued to the

driver was on 3 categories one for ride motor vehicle

and one for medium goods vehicle and one for heavy

goods vehicle. He contends that the licence came to be

issued on 23.10.1998. He contends that when the

licence was issued in the year 1998, the Rules governed

for issuance of licence is covered under Section 14 of

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the same would be

effective for a period of 20 years from the date of such

issuance or renewal or until the attainment of 50 years

age of the driver. On these grounds he contends that

the argument of the learned counsel for the Insurer

cannot be considered.

12. Be that as it may, we will deal with the issue

during the further course of Judgment.

13. Tribunal after assessing the material

evidence on record including Ex.P.23 and 25 has

awarded a global compensation of Rs.20,000/-, which

does not call for much interference by this Court. It is

also to be seen that there is no appeal preferred by

the claimant and neither any cross objection is filed by

the claimant. Accordingly, I do not wish to interfere

with the global compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

I do not find any illegality committed by the Tribunal

in fastening the liability on the Insurer. Accordingly,

the same is affirmed and the liability is fastened on

the Insurance Company.

14. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is dismissed.

(ii) The Judgment and Award dated

27.04.2013 passed in MVC.Nos.1523

2011 by the II Additional Senior Civil

Judge and Additional MACT, Gokak is

affirmed.

(iii) The amount in deposit, if any, may be

transmitted to the jurisdictional

Tribunal forthwith.

SD JUDGE

AM/CKK