Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Nanjundaswamy S/O Srekantayya @ ... on 12 February, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3390
MFA No. 100484 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100484 OF 2014 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.,
A.M. ARCADA NEAR VIDYARTHI BHAVAN,
C.G. HOSPITAL ROAD, DAVANAGERE,
REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS
REGIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR,
SRINATH COMPLEX, NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBLI
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(BY MISS. S.S. KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. NANJUNDASWAMY S/O. SREKANTAYYA @
SREEKANTAYASWAMY GOVINDAKOVIMATH,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HALEHULIHALLI, TQ: RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI.
BHARATHI
HM
2. ABDULSATTAR UMMAR KACCHI,
Digitally signed by
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
BHARATHI H M
Date: 2024.02.21
11:59:53 +0530
R/O: PLOT NO.118/1,
KALANDAR MANZIL SHIROLI,
TQ: HATKANAGALE, DIST: KOLHAPUR,
STATE: MAHARASTRA
(OWNER OF CAR BEARING NO.
MH-09/TC-213)
...RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENTS 1-2 SERVED)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT 1988,
AGAINST JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:30.12.2013, PASSED IN
MVC.NO.345/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND AMACT AT RANEBENNUR, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION
RS.1,21,200/- WITH THE INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 7% P.A. FROM
THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3390
MFA No. 100484 of 2014
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Insurance company is in appeal challenging the
validity of the judgment and award, insofar as fastening
the liability on the appellant/Insurance Company in
respect of accidental claim made by the claimants in MVC
No.345/210 dated 30.12.2013 on the file of Additional
Senior Civil Judge and AMACT, Ranebennur.
2. Facts in brief are as under:
In respect of road traffic accidental injuries sustained
by the claimant on 05.08.2009, involving a motorcycle
bearing No.KA-27/K-1397 and car bearing No.MH-09/TC-
213, a claim petition came to be filed under Section 166 of
Motor Vehicles Act.
3. Claim petition, on contest, came to be allowed in
a sum of Rs.1,21,200/- with interest at 7% p.a. from the
date of petition till realization and both the owners of the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3390
offending vehicle and the Insurance Company was made
liable to pay the compensation.
4. Being aggrieved by the same, Insurance Company
is in appeal.
5. Sri.S.S.Koliwad, learned counsel for the appellant,
reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum
contended that as on the date of accident, the driver of
the car bearing No.MH-09/TC-213, did not possess the
valid driving license and therefore, fastening the liability
on the Insurance Company of the car is incorrect.
6. In this regard, Sri.S.S.Kolliwaad, learned counsel
invited the attention of this Court on I.A.No.6 filed before
Trial Court calling the owner/driver of the vehicle to
produce the driving license and said application came to
be allowed and despite the same, the owner did not
produce the driving license and therefore, adverse
inference will have to be drawn against the owner/driver,
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3390
that there was no driving license and sought for allowing
the appeal.
7. Respondents are served with the notice and are
unrepresented.
8. Taking note of the arguments that is put forth on
behalf of the appellant, this Court perused the order sheet
of the Trial Court.
9. On such perusal, it is seen that I.A.No.6 came to
be filed on 11.10.2013 which came to be allowed by the
Trial Court and summons were issued by the RPAD.
10. The summons are also served as could be seen
from the order sheet dated 22.11.2013. However,
respondent No.2 sought for time to lead evidence.
Thereafter, again time was granted on behalf of
respondent No.2 to lead evidence on 06.12.2013.
11. But no coercive steps are taken for non
appearance of the witness as per I.A.No.6. In I.A.No.6,
direction was sought to respondent No.1 to produce the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3390
driving license. Mere filing an application and getting the
witness summons served, would not absolve the
responsibility of the Insurance Company in making effort
to produce the material evidence on record, to show that
the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess the
valid driving license as on the date of accident. Further,
no efforts are also made to obtain necessary information
from RTO.
12. It is also found from the records that in the
charge sheet, there is no mention that the driver of the
offending vehicle was charge sheeted for the offence under
Section 3 of Motor Vehicles Act.
13. Thus, the cumulative effect of these aspects of
the matter has been taken note by the Tribunal while
passing the impugned judgment and therefore, the plea
taken by the Insurance Company that the driver did not
possess the valid driving license was negated by the
Tribunal.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3390
14. Hence, even after revisiting to the material
evidence on record, this Court does not find any legal
infirmity or perversity in the impugned judgment, holding
the Insurance Company which is also liable for the
payment of compensation. There is no merit in the
grounds urged in the appeal memorandum for admitting
the appeal for further consideration. Hence, following:
ORDER
i. Admission is declined.
ii. Appeal is dismissed.
iii. Amount in deposit is ordered to be
transmitted to the Tribunal for
disbursement in accordance with law.
iv. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KAV
