Karnataka High Court
Sri Muniraju C vs Smt Shashikala on 28 November, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:43257
MFA No. 8174 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8174 OF 2017 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
SRI MUNIRAJU C
S/O M CHIKKANNA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/AT ANVERAPPANA KERE
3RD CROSS,
GANDHIBAZAR
SHIVAMOGGA-577 201
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI VENKATE GOWDA K.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT SHASHIKALA
W/O LATE J P NAGESH,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT JAMBALLI
MUTTINAKOPPA VILLAGE & POST,
N.R. PURA TALUK
Digitally CHICKMAGALURU DISTRICT-577137
signed by JAI
JYOTHI J
2. KUM SINCHANA
Location:
HIGH D/O LATE J P NAGESH
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
KARNATAKA
R/AT JAMBALLI
MUTTINAKOPPA VILLAGE & POST,
N.R.PURA TALUK
CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 137
3. KUM SHILPA
D/O LATE J P NAGESH
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
R/AT JAMBALLI
MUTTINAKOPPA VILLAGE & POST
N.R. PURA TALUK
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:43257
MFA No. 8174 of 2017
CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 137
4. SRI HANUMANTHAPPA
S/O LATE NAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT SUTTHUKOTE
HARNALLI HOBLI
SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577201
5. THE MANAGER
THE BAJAJ ALLANZ
GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
OFFICE NO.403 & 404,
4TH FLOOR CRYSTAL ARCADE
BALMATA,
MANGALORE-575001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRADEEP NAIK K., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3;
NOTICE TO R-4 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED;
SRI B.PRADEEP., ADVOCATE FOR R-5)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED01.08.2017 PASSED IN MVC
NO.317/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE 2ND ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, & JMFC, CHIKMAGALUR, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF Rs.7,24,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A.
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:43257
MFA No. 8174 of 2017
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal filed by the owner of the vehicle
aggrieved by the award passed in MVC No.317/2017,
dated 01.08.2017, by the IInd Additional Senior Civil
Judge And JMFC, Chikkamagaluru.
2. The claim petition is filed seeking compensation
of an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of the
deceased in a road traffic accident. When it comes to the
liability the court below has held that the driver of the
offending vehicle was not having valid driving license as
such the owner is liable to pay the compensation
aggrieved thereby the owner is before this court.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submits that as per the charge-sheet one Hanumanthappa
was driving the offending vehicle and according to the
owner one S.T.Manjunatha was driving the vehicle. It is
submitted that S.T.Manjunatha was having a valid driving
NC: 2023:KHC:43257
license. In that case, it is the insurance company that is
liable to pay the compensation and not the owner. Learned
counsel submits that the court below failed to appreciate
this fact and fastened the liability on the owner of the
vehicle.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance
company submits that neither before the court below nor
before this Court the driving license is filed. Even as stated
by the owner of the vehicle that S.T.Manjunatha who was
driving the vehicle was having the valid driving license, it
is submitted that only for the purpose of evading the
compensation he is coming up with such a plea. It is
submitted that the court below had rightly fastened the
liability on the owner of the vehicle and no grounds are
made out for interference by this court.
5. Having heard the learned counsel on either
side, perused the entire material on record.
NC: 2023:KHC:43257
6. In this case as per the charge-sheet one
Hanumanthappa was the driving the offending vehicle and
he is not having a valid driving license. Now a contention
is raised before this Court that it is one S.T.Manjunatha
who was driving the vehicle and the owner of the vehicle
having been served with a notice and having contested the
matter has not taken stand that either that
S.T.Manjunatha or Hanumanthappa was having a valid
driving license to drive the vehicle. In such a case coming
before this Court and raising the same grounds and stating
that the matter may be remanded for furnishing evidence,
in the considered opinion of this Court no purpose would
be served and the fact remains is that the driver of the
vehicle was not having a valid driving license and as
rightly held by the court below, the owner of the vehicle is
liable to pay the compensation.
7. Accordingly the appeal is Dismissed.
NC: 2023:KHC:43257
i) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court
Records to the Tribunal, along with certified
copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith
without any delay.
ii) The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to
the Tribunal forthwith.
iii) No costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
JJ
