Legal Manager vs Smt.B.G.Brunda
2022 Latest Caselaw 13230 Kant

                               1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

                            BEFORE

            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

                  M.F.A.NO.7040/2016 (MV-D)

BETWEEN:

LEGAL MANAGER,
IFFCO TOKIO GIC LTD.,
CUSTOMER SERVICE CENTRE,
SRI SHANTHI TOWERS, 5TH FLOOR,
NO.141, 3RD MAIN, EAST OF NGEF LAYOUT,
KASTURI NAGAR,
BANGALORE 560043.                               ...APPELLANT

                 (BY SRI PRADEEP B, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     SMT. B.G. BRUNDA,
       W/O LATE RAVICHANDRA,
       NOW AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
       R/AT NO.81/2/89, 6TH CROSS,
       SRI GANDHADA KAVALU,
       BANGALORE 560012.

2.     SRI MUNIYAPPA,
       D/O LATE POTHALAPPA,
       NOW AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.

3.     SMT. KEMPAMMA,
       W/O MUNIYAPPA,
       NOW AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.

       RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 ARE
       R/AT SANTHEKALLAHALLI VILLAGE,
       KAIWARA HOBLI,
                                2



     CHINTAMANI TALUK,
     CHIKKABALLAPUR DIST-19.

4.   VENKATASHAMAPPA,
     S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA,
     AGE MAJOR,
     R/O SANTHEKALLAHALLI VILLAGE,
     KAIWARA HOBLI,
     CHINATAMANI TALUK,
     CHIKKABALLAPURA DIST-19.
                                               ...RESPONDENTS

     (BY SRI GOPALAKRISHNA N., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3,
              NOTICE TO R4 IS DISPENSED WITH
               VIDE ORDER DATED 22.11.2022)

     THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.07.2016 PASSED
IN MVC NO.1481/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ADDITIONAL
SMALL CAUSE JUDGE & XIX ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE,
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.18,78,000/- WITH INTEREST @
6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT IN TRIBUNAL.

    THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                       JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the

learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and

award dated 04.07.2016, passed in M.V.C.No.1481/2015, on the

file of the XXI Additional Small Cause Judge and XIX ACMM,

Member, MACT, Bengaluru ('the Tribunal' for short).

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has filed this

appeal challenging the liability on the ground that the driver was

not having the driving licence to drive the tractor trailer and also

the vehicle was used for commercial purpose.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1

to 3 submits that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in

the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE

CO.LTD., reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663, the contention of the

Insurance Company cannot be sustained and also they were

transporting the stone for agricultural purpose only and hence

there is no violation.

5. Having heard the respective learned counsel and also

on perusal of the material available on record, admittedly the

vehicle involved in the accident is a LMV and the driver of the

vehicle was having the driving licence to drive the LMV. When

such being the case, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court

in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra), the very contention

of the Insurance Company cannot be accepted. With regard to

the using of the vehicle for commercial purpose, it is emerged in

the evidence that they were carrying the stone for agricultural

purpose only and hence the said contention also does not

survive for consideration. The appeal filed by the Insurance

Company lacks merits.

6. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is dismissed.

(ii) The amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.

Sd/-

JUDGE MD