Karnataka High Court
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company ... vs Mahesh S/O Mallikarjun Pattar on 22 November, 2023
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13712
MFA No. 25087 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.25087/2011(MV)
BETWEEN:
IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD., ZONAL OFFICE,
KSCMF BUILDING,
3RD FLOOR, 3RD BLOCK, #8,
CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU,
NOW AT, CUSTOMER SERVICE CENTRE,
"SRI SHANTHI TOWERS", 5TH FLOOR,
3RD MAIN, 141, EAST OF NGEF LAYOUT,
KASTURI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 084,
REP. BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,
REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI RAVINDRA R. MANE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
MAHESH S/O MALLIKARJUN PATTAR,
Digitally
signed by AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: GOLDSMITH,
BHARATHI R/O: YARAGATTI,
HM
TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI ANKIT DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.06.2011 PASSED BY
THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT TRIBUNAL, SAUNDATTI, IN MVC
NO.755/2006 AND ETC.,.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13712
MFA No. 25087 of 2011
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the insurance company
challenging the judgment and award dated 07.06.2011,
passed by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT,
Saundatti, in MVC No.755/2006, questioning the liability
fastened on it to pay compensation.
2. The factum of accident, injuries sustained by
the claimant in the accident, coverage of insurance are not
in dispute in this case.
3. Heard the arguments and perused the material
placed before the Court.
4. In the present case owner of the motorcycle
who is respondent No.1 before the tribunal died during
pendency of the claim petition and hence the trial Court
has observed that the claim petition against owner of
vehicle/respondent No.1 before the tribunal stands abated.
The tribunal has awarded compensation to the claimant.
The contention urged by the insurance company is
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13712
technical in nature that since the owner of the motorcycle
died during the pendency of the claim petition, therefore,
without bringing the L.Rs. of deceased respondent No.1 on
record, the claim petition is not maintainable and the
compensation ought not have been awarded.
5. It is proved that the legal heirs of owner of the
motorcycle were not brought on record. Therefore, this is
the technical aspect raised by the insurance company. But
while considering the case on its substantial way, even
though the L.Rs. of owner of motorcycle are not brought
on record, but the insurance policy was in existence as on
the date and time of accident. The claimant is a third party
to the motorcycle. Due to non observance of technicality
of law at the time of passing the award, the claimant
cannot be made sufferer. Even though the L.Rs. of
deceased owner of motorcycle are brought on record, then
also the result would be the same. Therefore, in this
regard the matter is considered in a substantial way by
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13712
holding that awarding of compensation by the tribunal
cannot be found fault with.
6. Further more, the insurance company even
though has taken contention that deceased was not having
driving licence, but the charge sheet is filed as abated
against the deceased owner of the motorcycle, but there is
no offence foisted for the offence of non holding driving
licence as per the provisions of the M.V.Act, 1988.
Therefore, the deceased was not holding driving licence is
only a presumptive aspect on the part of the appellant
insurance company.
7. Therefore considering the overall facts and
circumstances involved in the case, the approach of the
trial Court is not found to be perverse or illegal. Therefore
there are no good grounds available for interfering with
the judgment and award passed by the tribunal. Hence the
appeal is liable to be dismissed.
8. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13712
ORDER
i) The appeal is dismissed.
ii) The judgment and award dated
07.06.2011, passed by the Prl. Senior Civil
Judge and Addl. MACT, Saundatti, in MVC
No.755/2006, stands confirmed.
iii) The amount in deposit shall be
transmitted to the tribunal.
iv) No order as to costs.
SD/-
JUDGE
MRK
CT-ASC
