Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Smt. Neelabai W/O Nagappa @ Nagesh ... on 4 December, 2023
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14143
MFA No. 25086 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.25086/2011 (MV)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
RAMDEV GALLI, BELAGAVI - 590 002,
HEREIN REPRESENTED BY NATIONAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE, CELL,
SUJATA COMPLEX, P.B.ROAD,
HUBBALLI - 580 029,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI RAVINDRA R. MANE, ADVOCATE.)
AND:
1. SMT. NEELABAI
Digitally W/O. NAGAPPA @ NAGESH LAMANI,
signed by AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
BHARATHI R/O: KENDUR L.T., TQ: BADAMI,
HM NOW RESIDING AT MUCHAKHANDI L.T.,
TQ AND DIST: BAGALKOTE.
2. KUMAR VEERESH
S/O. NAGAPPA @ NAGESH LAMANI,
AGE: 8 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT.
3. KUMAR KRISHNAPPA
S/O NAGAPPA @ NAGESH LAMANI,
AGE: 6 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT.
4. KUMARI ASHA @ AISHWARYA
D/O NAGAPPA @ NAGESH LAMAN,
AGE: 3 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14143
MFA No. 25086 of 2011
(SINCE RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4 ARE MINORS,
THEY ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER
ANDNATURAL GUARDIAN RESPONDENT NO.1.)
5. SMT. RUKMAVVA W/O. RAMAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: KENDUR L.T., TQ: BADAMI,
NOW RESIDING AT MUCHAKHANDI L.T.,
TQ AND DIST: BAGALKOTE.
6. VITHALAGOUDA
S/O. GOVINDAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: TRACTOR OWNER,
R/O:KALASSA, TQ: BADAMI,
DIST: BAGALKOTE.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI D.B.PATTAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI ANAND R. KOLLI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R5;
R2 TO R4 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R1;
SRI S.M.NADAF, ADVOCATE FOR R6)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.08.2011 PASSED
BY THE COURT OF MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
NO.III, BAGALKOTE, IN MVC NO.712/2008 AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the insurance company
challenging the judgment and award dated 10.08.2011, in
MVC No.712/2008, passed by the Member, MACT-III,
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14143
Bagalkote, calling in question the liability fixed on the
appellant insurance company.
2. The factum of accident, death of deceased are
not in dispute in this case. The only disputed fact is
whether the insurance company is liable to pay
compensation or not.
3. Heard the arguments and perused the material
placed before the Court.
4. In the present case the deceased was a
pedestrian, hit by tractor and trailer and the deceased
died. It is the ground urged by the appellant insurance
company and argued by the learned counsel that tractor
trailer constitute a special class of vehicle. Therefore mere
holding driving licence to drive light motor vehicle is not
sufficient. Therefore argued that the insurance company is
not liable to pay compensation as there is violation of
condition of insurance policy.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14143
5. Admittedly the driver was holding driving
licence to drive the light motor vehicle (non transport).
The person who was holding the driving licence to drive
the light motor vehicle (non transport) can also drive the
light motor vehicle (transport). Admittedly the tractor
trailer is a light motor vehicle coming within the definition
of section 2(21) of the M.V.Act. Therefore, there is no
violation of condition of policy so as to exonerate the
insurance company.
6. Another ground canvassed by the learned
counsel for appellant that the tractor is insured and the
trailer is not insured and the deceased hit by tractor from
backside. Therefore, when the tractor is insured, and the
tractor engine hit the deceased, therefore the insurance
company shall indemnify the owner of the tractor and to
pay compensation. The trailer cannot move independently
without tractor engine. Hence the tribunal is correct in
fastening the liability on the appellant insurance company.
Hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14143
7. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is dismissed.
ii) The judgment and award dated
10.08.2011, in MVC No.712/2008, passed by
the Member, MACT-III, Bagalkote, stands
confirmed.
iii) The amount in deposit shall be
transmitted to the tribunal.
iv) No order as to costs.
SD/-
JUDGE
MRK
CT-ASC
