The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Thippeswamy
2022 Latest Caselaw 12371 Kant

                            1



      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

                         BEFORE

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

                 M.F.A.No.6482/2014 (MV)

BETWEEN

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD
BRANCH OFFICE CHITRADURGA
THROUGH T.P.CLAIMS HUB
MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD
BANGALORE-1
BY DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY
                                              ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI K SURYANARAYANA RAO, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THIPPESWAMY, S/O LATE LINGAPPA
   AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
   R/AT RAMDAS COMPOUND
   GOPALPURA ROAD
   CHITRADURGA - 577501

2. JABEENA BI A KHAZI, MAJOR IN AGE
   R/O 902, 9TH STAGE, 'A' CROSS
   6TH MAIN, 2ND STAGE
   WEST OF CHORD ROAD
   BANGALORE-560 086
                                           ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B PRAMOD, ADVOCATE FOR R1
 V/O DT.28.02.2017, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2
 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
                                  2




     THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.03.2014
PASSED IN MVC.NO.247/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDL. M.A.C.T,
CHITRADURGA AND ETC.

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

                           JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award

dated 17.03.2014 passed in M.V.C.No.247/2008 on the file of

the Additional District and Sessions Judge and Additional Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Chitradurga ('the Tribunal' for short).

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

appellants and the learned counsel appearing for respondent

No.1.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant

would vehemently contend that the Tribunal has committed an

error in fastening the liability on the insurance company in

coming to the conclusion that the vehicle involved in the

accident is light goods vehicle and the driver had driving licence

to drive motorcycle with gear and also to drive light motor

vehicle (non-transport) which is valid for 20 years and erred in

holding that the driver was holding valid and effective DL to

drive the light motor vehicle (non-transport) hence, it requires

interference.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for

respondent No.1 would vehemently contend that in view of the

judgment of MUKUND DEWAGAN VS ORIENTAL INSURANCE

COMPANY LIMITED reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663, the very

contention of the insurance company cannot be accepted.

5. Having heard the respective counsel appearing for

the parties and also on perusal of the documents on record it

discloses that the Tribunal while discussing the liability, in

paragraphs 35 to 37 discussed the nature of involvement of the

vehicle and there is no dispute that the vehicle involved in the

accident is light goods vehicle and the driver was having driving

licence to drive the light motor vehicle (non-transport) and in

paragraph 37 discussed regarding registration certificate which is

marked as Ex.R2 and Ex.R3 - DL and Ex.R2 shows that the lorry

involved in the accident is light goods vehicle and it shows that

ULW as 2870 kilograms and RLW as 5300 kilograms and also

driving licence was valid. Hence, there is a force in the

contention of the counsel for respondent No.1. When such being

the case, when the vehicle which is involved in the accident

shows ULW as 2870 kilograms, it is rightly pointed by the

counsel for the respondent No.1 that the case of MUKUND

DEWANGAN (supra) is aptly applicable to the case on hand.

Hence, I do not find any force in the argument of the learned

counsel appearing for the appellant.

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

following:

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.

The amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to be

transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SN