Karnataka High Court
Sri V Krishne Gowda vs Sri R Ravi Kumar on 4 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:43905
MFA No. 6612 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6612 OF 2012
(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. V KRISHNE GOWDA
S/O VARADAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 825/1,
NEAR STADIUM, WATER TANK ROAD,
KEELUKOTE KOLAR - 563 101
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. HARISHA S., ADVOCATE FOR;
SRI. N S SHESHADRI.,ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by JAI AND:
JYOTHI J
Location: 1. SRI. R. RAVI KUMAR
HIGH S/O RADHA KRISHNA
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
RESIDIFNG AT NO. 1319
MARUTHI NILAYA, KATARIPALYA
KOLAR TOWN-563010
2. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
D O S UNITY BUILDING ANNEX
MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU-560027
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:43905
MFA No. 6612 of 2012
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. L SREEKANTA RAO.,ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. JAGADISH G. KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED16.9.2011 PASSED IN
MVC NO.6083/2009 ON THE FILE OF MEMBER, MACT, 4TH
ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF
RS.56,800/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE
OF PETITION TILL ITS PAYMENT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR JUDGEMENT, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal filed by the owner of the vehicle
aggrieved by the award passed in MVC.No.6083/2009
dated 16.09.2011 on the file of the IV Addl. Judge, Court
of Small Causes and MACT, Bangalore.
2. The claim petition was filed by the claimant
seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for
the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. The
NC: 2023:KHC:43905
owner of the vehicle, appellant herein who is Respondent
No.1 before the court below was placed exparte. The
court below while fixing the liability had observed that RW-
1 and 2 by producing the 'B' register extract pertaining to
the rider of the offending vehicle Ex.R-2 and R-6 that the
rider had license to drive LMV Non-Transport car. The
offending vehicle is motor cycle with gear and to ride the
said vehicle, one must have a separate license. As it
being a different class of vehicle, a person with said
license is not expected to ride the motor cycle and held
that the insurance company is not liable to pay the
compensation and granted compensation of an amount of
Rs.56,800/-.
3. Learned counsel for the owner of the vehicle
submits that in fact they have given all the documents to
the insurance company and also to the Investigating
Officer which is evident from the charge sheet. He
submits that the insurance company having had all the
documents has chosen to submit only part of it and the
NC: 2023:KHC:43905
part of it is not submitted. He submits that during the
pendency of the appeal, by way of additional evidence,
they have already produced the driving license which
shows that he is having a driving license to drive a vehicle
with gear from 07.09.1991 to 20.04.2010. Accident had
taken place on 28.06.2009 and the rider of the offending
vehicle is having effective driving license and the
insurance company is liable to pay the compensation.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
insurance company submits that earlier the matter
underwent adjournment for filing objections and to obtain
instructions in this regard. Learned counsel for the
insurance company do not dispute the fact that the driver
is having license to drive a motor cycle with gear. He
submits that as owner of the vehicle contested the matter
before the court below and produced these documents.
Now because of the lapses on the part of the owner of the
vehicle, the insurance company has to pay the interest for
the these many years. He submits that in fact it is the
NC: 2023:KHC:43905
owner of the vehicle who has to pay the interest for these
years and the insurance company is not liable to pay the
compensation.
5. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that
because of this dispute and issue between the owner of
the vehicle and insurer, the claimant being a third party to
the insurance policy is not able to get any amount, when
the accident had taken in the year 2009.
6. Having heard the learned counsel on either
side, perused the entire material on record. The
submission of the learned counsel for the insurance
company that the owner of the vehicle that they have
given all the documents to the insurance company and
they have not produced before the court, this court is not
able to appreciate such a contention. When he had
received the summons, the owner of the vehicle ought to
have represented before the court. It appears that he had
produced the driving license and other documents before
the police. Now by way of additional evidence, the driving
NC: 2023:KHC:43905
license has been produced before this court which is
undisputed. As per the same, driver is having license to
drive a vehicle with gear which is valid from 07.09.1991
till 20.04.2010 which makes it crystal clear that as on the
date of the accident the rider of the vehicle is having a
valid driving license. In such a case, the insurance
company is liable to pay the compensation.
7. Coming to the contention of the learned counsel
for the insurance company, because of the lapses on the
part of owner of the vehicle, they cannot be made to pay
the interest and from 04.12.2009 till today and the owner
of the vehicle has to pay the interest. This court finds no
force in the submission of the learned counsel for the
reason, the insurance company has filed Ex.R-2 and Ex.R-
6 before the court. As per Ex.R-6, he was having Non-
Transport license from 1996 to 2011. When they got
these documents from RTO office with regard to four
wheeler as well it has to be presumed that the other
documents with regard to his driving license is very much
NC: 2023:KHC:43905
available with the insurance company and for the best
reasons known to them, they have not produced the
same. In such a scenario, this court finds no reasons to
direct the owner of the vehicle to pay the interest for the
said period. It is undisputed that the driver of the vehicle
is having a license to drive the vehicle with gear, the
Insurance company is liable to pay the compensation.
8. Accordingly, appeal of the owner of vehicle is
Allowed and the Insurance Company is held liable to
pay the compensation.
(a) The compensation amount shall carry
interest @ 6% per annum from the date
of petition, till the date of realization.
(b) Respondent-Insurance Company shall
deposit the compensation amount with
accrued interest before the tribunal within
a period of 8 (Eight) weeks.
(c) The amount in deposit, the owner of the
vehicle is at liberty to withdraw the same.
NC: 2023:KHC:43905
(d) The Registry is directed to return the Trial
Court Record to the Tribunal along with
the certified copy of the order passed by
this court forthwith without any delay.
(e) No Costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
TS
