The United India Insurance vs Aslam Pasha S/O Makbul Sab And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 9595 Kant

                            1


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                    KALABURAGI BENCH

          DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2022

                         BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
                 MFA No.200369/2019 (MV)
BETWEEN:

THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD., THROUGH ITS
BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH OF
SINGHA RAO COMPLEX, BEHIND
INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK,
BUS-STAND ROAD,
SINDHANUR, NOW THROUGH
ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER.
                                            ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)


AND:
1.     ASLAM PASHA S/O MAKBUL SAB,
       AGE: 24 YEARS,
       OCC: STUDENT AND WORKER,
       R/O VIJAY NAGAR COLONY,
       SIRWAR, NOW AT NETAJI ROAD,
       RAICHUR-584101.

2.     MARIYAPPA S/O KENCHAPPA,
       AGE: OWNER-CUM-DRIVER OF CAR
       BEARING NO.KA-37/M-4644,
       R/O H.NO.90, KAVITHAL VILLAGE,
       TQ. MANVI, DIST. RAICHUR-584101.
                                          ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADOVCATE FOR R1;
     R2-SERVED)
                                     2


     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO
CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 15.10.2018 IN MVC NO.269 OF 2016 PASSED
BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT AT RAICHUR BY
ALLOWING THE APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR.

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

                            JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company

challenging the judgment and award dated 15.10.2018

passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT at

Raichur, in MVC No.269/2016.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are

referred as per the ranks occupied by them before the

Tribunal.

3. The claimant/respondent No.1, the owner of the

vehicle has filed a claim petition under Section 166 of M.V.

Act claiming compensation of Rs.21.00 Lakhs on account of

injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident occurred on

26.10.2015.

4. The Tribunal after assessing oral and

documentary evidence has awarded compensation of

Rs.2,00,100/- and respondent Nos.1 & 2 were held jointly and

severally liable to pay compensation.

5. The appellant/Insurance Company, who is

respondentNo.2 before the Tribunal, has filed this appeal only

on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle did not

possess valid and effective driving licence and he was also

convicted under Section 3 read with 181 of MV Act by the

Criminal Court as he has pleaded guilty. Hence, he contends

that, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court

reported in Pappu and others Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba

and another reported in 2018 ACJ 690, the Tribunal

ought to have passed an order regarding 'Pay and Recovery'.

Hence, to this extent he seeks for allowing the appeal

regarding the order of Pay and Recovery.

6. Heard the arguments and perused the records.

7. The claimant has suffered injuries in the road

traffic accident that occurred on 26.10.2015 and he was

knocked down by the car bearing Registration No.

KA.37/M.4644 from back side. Hence, the Tribunal has

awarded compensation of Rs.2,00,100/-.

8. The Insurance Company is not disputing the

coverage of insurance of the offending vehicle. However, the

Insurance Company has raised a ground that the driver of the

offending vehicle was not possessing valid and effective

driving licence. The copy of judgment produced at Ex.R7

clearly disclose that the driver was convicted under Sections

279 and 338 of IPC and Section 3 read with 181 of the MV

Act. When the driver of the offending vehicle was convicted

under Section 3 read with 181 of MV Act, it is evident that he

was not possessing driving licence, for which he was

convicted.

9. Respondent No.1 did not choose to appear before

the Tribunal and produce the driving licence of the driver.

Under these circumstances, it is evident that there is breach

of policy conditions and the driver of offending vehicle did not

possess valid and effective driving licence.

10. The Insurance Company has not disputed the

quantum. However, the contention of Insurance Company is

that, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Pappu's

case (cited supra), the Tribunal ought to have passed an

order of 'Pay and Recover' and to this extent, interference is

sought.

11. There is force in the said arguments. Considering

the grounds urged and perusing records, the said arguments

need to be accepted, as the driver of offending vehicle was

not possessing valid and effective driving licence as on the

date of accident. Hence, the appeal needs to be allowed

subject to modification in the judgment and award of the

Tribunal. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

i) The appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 15.10.2018 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Raichur, in MVC No.269/2016 is confirmed so far as it relates to quantum and modified regarding liability.

ii) The appellant/respondent No.2-Insurance Company is hereby directed to pay compensation of

Rs.2,00,100/- with interest accrued thereon, as ordered by the Tribunal and it is at liberty to recover the same from the owner/Respondent No.1.

iii) The appellant/Insurance Company shall deposit the entire compensation amount with accrued interest, within six weeks.

The statutory amount in deposit shall be transmitted to

the Tribunal.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KGR*