The Branch Manager vs Sri M J Mallesh Gowda S/O Javare ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8876 Kant

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                        BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7285 OF 2009 (MV)

BETWEEN:

THE BRANCH MANAGER
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
BRANCH OFFICE,
PANDURANGA COMPLEX,
K.T.STREET,
CHIKKAMAGALURU.
BY ITS
THE REGIONAL MANAGER
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
REGIONAL OFFICE,
NO.2-B, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE,
P.KALINGA RAO ROAD (MISSION ROAD),
BENGALURU-560 027.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
DEPUTY MANAGER
                                         ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. P.B. RAJU, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   SRI. M.J. MALLESH GOWDA
     S/O JAVARE GOWDA
     AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
     RESIDING AT MAVENAKERE VILLAGE,
     K.R.PETE POST,
     CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK.

2.   SRI. M.N.SHIVA KUMAR
     S/O M.C. NAGARAJ
     AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
     MAVENAKERE VILLAGE,
                               2


    K.R.PETE POST,
    CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK,
    OWNER-CUM-DRIVER OF
    GOODS AUTHORICKSHAW BEARING
    REGN. NO.KA-18/7839.
                                    ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. CHANDRAKANTH R. GOULAY, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
 SRI. M.K. BHASKARAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

      THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10TH
AUGUST, 2009 PASSED IN M.V.C NO.323 OF 2007 ON THE
FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT,
CHIKKAMAGALURU,     AWARDING     COMPENSATION   OF
RS.1,63,600/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% PER ANNUM FROM
THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALISATION.

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

                       JUDGMENT

Heard Sri. P.B. Raju, learned counsel appearing for

the appellant.

2. The challenge is to the judgment and award dated

10th August, 2009 passed in M.V.C. No.323 of 2007 on the

file of the Additional District Judge and Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, Chikkamagaluru (for short, hereinafter

referred to as 'Tribunal').

3. In terms of the impugned judgment and award,

the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,63,600/-

along with interest at 6% per annum in favour of the

claimant. The Tribunal has held that the Insurance

Company has to the pay compensation to the claimant and

is entitled to recover the compensation amount from the

owner of the vehicle. The reason for the Tribunal to hold

that the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the

compensation is that the owner has intentionally allowed

the person who is not possessing the valid and effective

Driving Licence, to drive the vehicle.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-

Insurance Company is in appeal before this court seeking to

absolve the liability on the ground that the owner of the

vehicle/insured has intentionally allowed the person who is

not possessing valid Driving Licence to drive the vehicle

involved in the accident. This Court has considered the

evidence on record and also reasons assigned by the

Tribunal. The evidence would indicate the fact that

Insurance Company has not established the fact that the

owner has intentionally allowed the person not possessing

the valid and effective Driving Licence to drive the vehicle.

Under these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that

there is no scope for interference in the judgment and

award passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, appeal is

dismissed. Amount in deposit be transferred to the

jurisdictional Tribunal.

Sd/-

JUDGE

ARK