Karnataka High Court
The Manager vs Laxmi W/O.Krishna Kude on 5 December, 2023
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14218
MFA No. 23904 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.23904/2013 (MV)
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER
RELIANCE GEN. INS. CO. LTD.,
OFFICE AT: KOLHAPUR CIRCLE,
NEHARU NAGAR, BELAGAVI,
REP. BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER LEGAL CLAIMS,
CTS, 472-474, V A KALBURGI SQUARE,
DESAI CIRCLE, DESHAPANDE NAGAR,
HUBBALLI - 580 029.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI NAGARAJ C. KOLLOORI, ADVOCATE.)
AND:
1. SMT. LAXMI W/O. KRISHNA KUDE,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK.
2. SRI RAMESH S/O. KRISHNA KUDE,
Digitally AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT.
signed by
BHARATHI
HM 3. KUMARI KALPANA D/O. KRISHNA KUDE,
AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK.
ALL ARE R/O: KALI AMBRAI, BELAGAVI.
4. SRI PRAVEEN S/O. PRAKASH PATKE,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. PLOT NO. 2077, SECTOR NO. 9,
M. M. EXTENSION, BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
R1 TO R3 - NOTICE SERVED.)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14218
MFA No. 23904 of 2013
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.06.2013, PASSED BY
THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, IN
MVC NO.1824/2010 AND ETC.,.
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 06.06.2013, in
MVC No.1824/2010, passed by the II Addl. Senior Civil
Judge and Addl. MACT, Belagavi, questioning liability
fastened on it and also for reducing the quantum of
compensation.
2. The factum of accident, death of deceased in
the accident, coverage of insurance are not in dispute in
this case. The disputed fact is whether the driver of the
TATA passenger vehicle was holding driving licence or not.
3. Heard the arguments and perused the records.
4. In the present case it is the contention of the
insurance company that one Sunil S/o.Keshav Rajaput was
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14218
driving the TATA passenger vehicle. But the driving licence
as per Ex.R.3 is in the name of Anil Keshav Rajaput.
Therefore contended both these Anil and Sunil are two
different persons. Hence submitted, insurance company is
not liable to indemnify the owner and to pay
compensation.
5. Here, in the complaint the name of driver is
mentioned as Sunil S/o.Keshav Rajaput. In Ex.R.3 driving
licence the driver name is mentioned as Anil S/o.Keshav
Rajaput. There is only a difference in a single letter in
mentioning the name of the driver. Owner of TATA
passenger vehicle is examined and he has deposed that
both Sunil and Anil are one and the same person. The
Investigating Officer has filed the charge sheet for the
offence punishable under section 3 read with section 181
of the M.V.Act, only on the reason that there is single
letter difference in mentioning the name of the driver. But
upon perusing the evidence on record, the driving licence
proves the name as Anil S/o.Keshav Rajaput. The owner of
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14218
the offending vehicle has also deposed that both the
persons are one and the same. Therefore by considering
the entire evidence on record on all its preponderance of
probabilities, the driver is the same person and cannot be
said two different persons, just because the difference in
mentioning a single letter. Therefore there is no merit
found in the argument canvassed by the learned counsel
for appellant insurance company.
6. Upon considering the compensation awarded by
the tribunal, by overall the quantum of compensation
awarded is found to be just and proper. Even though the
tribunal ought to have deducted 50% of the income
instead of 1/3rd of the income towards personal and living
expenses, but the other factors taken are on lesser side. If
the correct income and other factors are taken into
consideration, then the amount of compensation would be
more. But the claimants have not filed any appeal.
Therefore in this context the compensation awarded by the
tribunal is found to be just and proper, which needs no
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14218
interference. Therefore the appeal filed by the insurance
company is liable to be dismissed.
7. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal filed by the insurance
company is dismissed.
ii) The judgment and award dated
06.06.2013, in MVC No.1824/2010, passed by
the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT,
Belagavi, stands confirmed.
iii) The amount in deposit shall be
transmitted to the tribunal.
iv) Send back the trial Court records
along with a copy of this judgment.
v) No order as to costs.
SD/-
JUDGE
MRK
CT-ASC
