The New India Insurance Co.Ltd vs Parameshwarappa S/O. Sangappa
2024 Latest Caselaw 4267 Kant

Karnataka High Court

The New India Insurance Co.Ltd vs Parameshwarappa S/O. Sangappa on 12 February, 2024

Author: V.Srishananda

Bench: V.Srishananda

                                                    -1-
                                                          NC: 2024:KHC-D:3389
                                                           MFA No. 100465 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.100465 OF 2014 (MV-I)
                       BETWEEN:

                       THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.,
                       BY ITS MANAGER DIVISIONAL OFFICE
                       P.J. EXTENSION, A.M. ARECADA,
                       C.J. HOSPITAL ROAD, DAVANGERE,
                       REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER,
                       NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
                       SRINATH COMPLEX NEW COTTON MARKET,
                       HUBLI.

                                                                       ...APPELLANT
                       (BY SRI. G.N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE)

                       AND:

                       1.   PARAMESHWARAPPA S/O. SANGAPPA,
                            AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
                            R/O. SHIGGAON BEDARAHOSALLI,
                            POST: BULLAPUR, TQ and DIST: SHIMOGA,
          Digitally         NOW AT RANEBENNUR.
          signed by
          SAROJA
          HANGARAKI
SAROJA
HANGARAKI Date:
                       2.   SYED AMEER S/O. SYED MOHAMMED,
          2024.02.19        AGE : MAJOR, OCC: MUTTON MERCHANT,
          16:05:42
          +0530             R/O. J.P. NAGAR, 2ND CROSS,
                            BELEGAR STREET, DIST: SHIMOGA.

                                                                    ...RESPONDENTS
                       (BY SRI. G.S. HULAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
                           R2 SERVED )

                             THIS M.F.A. IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST
                       JUDGMENT      AND    AWARD    DTD:16.12.2013,   PASSED    IN
                       MVC.NO.668/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE &
                       ADDL. MACT, RANEBENNUR, AWARDING THE COMPENSTION OF
                       RS.1,03,400/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE
                       DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS DEPOSIT.
                                 -2-
                                       NC: 2024:KHC-D:3389
                                        MFA No. 100465 of 2014




     THIS M.F.A., COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                            JUDGMENT

Heard Sri.G.N.Raichur, learned counsel for the appellant

and Sri.G.S.Hulamani, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1

and 2.

2. Insurance Company is in appeal challenging the

validity of the judgment and award passed in MVC No.668/2011

dated 16.12.2013 on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge and

A.M.A.C.T., Ranebennur, where under the claim of respondent

No.1 came to be allowed in part in a sum of Rs.1,03,400/- for

the accidental injuries sustained by the claimant.

3. The sole ground on which the Insurance Company has

challenged the liability is that the driver of the offending vehicle

did not possess the valid endorsement in respect of driving

license possessed by him.

4. The said ground is now not available to the appellant

in challenging the validity of the impugned judgment and award

in view of authoritative principles of law enunciated by Hon'ble

NC: 2024:KHC-D:3389

Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental

Insurance Company Limited reported in 2017 ACJ 2011.

5. Accordingly, there is no merit in the appeal so as to

admit the same for further consideration.

6. 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.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KAV