S Abdul Rahiman vs Smt Maimoona
2024 Latest Caselaw 4277 Kant

Karnataka High Court

S Abdul Rahiman vs Smt Maimoona on 12 February, 2024

                                                 -1-
                                                               NC: 2024:KHC:6684
                                                          MFA No. 2432 of 2010




                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                            DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
                                                BEFORE
                              THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
                        MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2432 OF 2010 (MV)
                   BETWEEN:

                         S. ABDUL RAHIMAN,
                         S/O YUSUF,
                         AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
                         R/AT SAROLI HOUSE,
                         PERAMOGRU, KEDILA VILLAGE,
                         BANTWAL TALUK,
                         DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.
                                                                     ...APPELLANT
                   (BY SRI. UDAYA SHANKAR RAI P., ADVOCATE)
                   AND:

                   1.    SMT. MAIMOONA,
                         W/O LATE MOIDEEN,
                         AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.

                   2.    SMT. AISAMMA,
                         W/O LATE IBRAHIM,
                         AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS.
Digitally signed
by BHARATHI              BOTH R/O GANDHINAGAR,
S                        KEDILA VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK,
Location: HIGH           DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
                   3.    SRI. HAMEED,
                         S/O YOUSUF BEARY,
                         AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
                         R/AT SAROLI HOUSE,
                         PERAMOGRU, KEDILA VILLAGE,
                         BANTWAL TALUK,
                         DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.

                   4.    THE BRANCH MANAGER,
                         THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED,
                                                 -2-
                                                            NC: 2024:KHC:6684
                                                         MFA No. 2432 of 2010




         BRANCH OFFICE:
         BANTWAL, II FLOOR,
         GANESH BUILDING, B.C. ROAD,
         BANTWAL TALUK,
         DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT
                                                               ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A.N. KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
    VIDE ORDER DATED:05.02.2024, NOTICE TO R1 TO
    R3 IS DISPENSED WITH)

     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:13.10.2009 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1530/2005 ON THE FILE OF MEMBER, MACT, PUTTUR, DAKSHINA
KANNADA, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.3,92,000/- WITH
INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.
     THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                         JUDGMENT

The above appeal is filed by the owner challenging the

judgment and award dated 13.10.2009 passed in

MVC.No.1530/2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Putur, D.K1.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are

referred as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

3. The Tribunal by its judgment and award dated

13.10.2009 has allowed the claim petition and awarded

compensation of Rs.3,92,000/- together with interest at 6%

per annum and fastened the liability to pay compensation on

Hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'

NC: 2024:KHC:6684

Respondent No.1 who is the owner of the vehicle. Being

aggrieved the present appeal is preferred by the owner.

4. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the

Tribunal has recorded a finding that the driver was duly

licenced to drive a light motor vehicle (LMV) as on the date of

accident and the insured vehicle was a ambassador car which

was a taxi. Hence, the Tribunal has recorded a finding that

since driver of the vehicle was not duly licenced to drive the

insured vehicle, compensation required to be paid by the

owner.

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MUKUND

DEWANGAN V/S ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY

LIMITED2 considering a similar question has held that no

separate endorsement to the licence is required to drive a

transport vehicle of Light Motor Vehicle category.

6. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN2 and having regard to

the finding of the Tribunal, the insurer is liable to pay the

(2017)14 SC 663

NC: 2024:KHC:6684

compensation awarded and the finding of the Tribunal to the

said extent is liable to be interfered with.

7. In view of the same, the following order:

ORDER

i) The above appeal is allowed in part;

ii) The judgment and awarded dated 13.10.2009 passed in MVC.No.1530/2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Putur, D.K, is modified only to the extent of holding that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal shall be paid by the insurer who is arrayed as Respondent No.4 in the above appeal and Respondent No.3 before the Tribunal. In all other respects, the judgment and award of the Tribunal remains unaltered;

iii) The insurer shall deposit the compensation awarded within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;

iv) The amount deposited by the Appellant shall be refunded to the Appellant;

v) The Registry to draw the modified award accordingly;

      vi)    No costs.




                                                  Sd/-
                                                 JUDGE