Karnataka High Court
The Manager vs Basavaraj S/O Shivappa Suranagi on 13 February, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3416
MFA No. 24894 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.24894 OF 2011 (MV)
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
1ST FLOOR, KRISHNA AGENCY, P.B. ROAD,
HAVERI, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, SUJATA COMPLEX,
P.B. ROAD, HUBLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BASAVARAJ S/O. SHIVAPPA SURANAGI,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O: MELAGATTI, TQ. SAVANUR,
DIST. HAVERI.
2. SMT. KASHAVVA W/O. BASAPPA SURANAGI,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: MELAGATTI, TALUK. SAVANUR,
Digitally
DIST. HAVERI.
signed by
BHARATHI
BHARATHI H M
HM Date:
2024.02.21
11:59:06
+0530
3. SAHADEV S/O. KENJEVAPPA DODDAMANI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF THE VEHICLE
(BEARING REGISTRATION NO. KA-31/J-8088),
R/O: LPS, ATABAIL MUNDAGOD, DIST. KARWAR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B.MALAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R2;
R3 HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF THE M.V.ACT 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DATED:04.08.2011, PASSED
IN MVC NO.28/2011 (OLD MVC NO.313/2010 AND 314/2010) ON
THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT COURT AND M.A.C.T. (FAST TRACK
COURT) AT HAVERI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF
RS.5,29,792/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE
DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3416
MFA No. 24894 of 2011
THIS M.F.A., COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.S.S.Kayakamath, learned counsel for the
appellant and Sri.Santhosh B. Malagoudar, learned counsel
for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. Insurance Company is in appeal challenging the
validity judgment and award passed in MVC No.28/2011
(old MVC No.313/2010) on the file of Additional MACT,
Haveri.
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:
Claimants being the parents of Sri.Basavaraj
Shivappa Suranagi, a young advocate who lost this life in
a road traffic accident occurred on 26.01.2010 at about
3.30 p.m. involving a Hero Honda motorcycle bearing
No.KA-31/J-8088, lodged a claim for awarding suitable
compensation.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3416
4. Claim petition, on contest, came to be allowed
in a sum of Rs.5,29,792/- with interest at 6% p.a. from
the date of petition till its realisation.
5. Claim petition was resisted by filing detailed
written statement. Claim petition was also hotly
contested on the ground that rider of the motorcycle
bearing No.KA-31/J-8088 did not possess a valid driving
license.
6. After recording the evidence of the parties in
detail and after considering the probative value of the
material on record, Ex.P.14 which is a photocopy of the
driving licenses of the rider of the motorcycle bearing
No.KA-31/J-8088, Tribunal allowed a sum of
Rs.5,29,792/- and fastened the liability on the Insurance
Company of the motorcycle.
7. Being aggrieved by the same, Insurance
Company is in appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3416
8. Sri.S.K.Kayakamath, learned counsel for the
appellant, reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal
memorandum vehemently contended that Ex.P.14 is a
photocopy of the driving license which is tampered,
Insurance Company is able to obtain an endorsement
from the Regional Transport Office (RTO), that no such
license as is found in Ex.P.14, is issued by RTO.
Therefore, the liability is to be shifted on the owner of the
motorcycle.
9. Per contra, Sri.Santhosh B. Malagoudar, learned
counsel contended that R.W.1, who is the officer of the
Insurance Company has been examined before the Court
and he has been thoroughly cross examined.
10. Taking note of the rival contentions of the
parties, Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability on the
Insurance Company and sought for dismissal of the
appeal.
11. In view of the rival contentions of the parties,
this Court perused the material on record, meticulously.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3416
12. On such perusal of the material on record, it is
crystal clear that the police have filed charge sheet
against the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.KA-31/J-
8088. However, what is the result of criminal case
inasmuch as whether the rider of the motorcycle has
pleaded guilty or not is not placed on record by either of
the parties.
13. Accidental death of Sri.Basavaraj Shivappa
Suranagi, in a road traffic accident involving a motorcycle
bearing No.KA-31/J-8088 is not in dispute. Only point
that was required to be considered by the Tribunal was
whether the rider of the motorcycling bearing No.KA-
31/J-8088 had a proper driving license. In this regard
Ex.P.14 has been relied on by the Tribunal.
14. R.W.1, who is the officer of the Insurance
Company specifically, deposed that the rider of the
motorcycle did not have proper driving license.
15. In his cross examination, it has been elicited
that the Insurance Company has issued notice to the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3416
owner of the motorcycle and same is served. But he also
admits that copy of the notice and postal
acknowledgment said to have been issued by the
Insurance Company and postal acknowledgment thereof,
is not produced before the Court by the Insurance
Company. What prevented the Insurance Company in
not producing the copy of the notice and postal
acknowledgment is a question that remains answered
and therefore, it must be presumed that no such notice is
issued.
16. Insofar as, endorsement that is issued by the
RTO before this Court is concerned, admittedly, it is a
post suit document. What prevented the Insurance
Company to carry out such an exercise during the
pendency of the claim petition is not explained on behalf
of the appellant.
17. Taking note of the fact that standard of proof
that is required before the Tribunal to establish the
nature of accident and liability factor, this Court is
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3416
satisfied that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the
material evidence on record and has fastened the liability
on the Insurance Company of the motorcycle bearing
No.KA-31/J-8088.
18. Therefore, the grounds urged in the appeal are
hardly sufficient to interfere with the impugned
judgment. Hence, following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed.
(ii) Amount in deposit is ordered to be
transmitted to the Tribunal.
(iii) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KAV
