Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Sri. Basavaraj S/O Prakash on 16 January, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:1111
MFA No. 23584 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.23584 OF 2011 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, STATION ROAD, OPP. MINI
VIDHANASOUDHA, GULBARGA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS, DEPUTY MANAGER,
REGIONAL OFFICE (CELL), SUJATA COMPLEX,
P.B. ROAD, HUBLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. G.N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. BASAVARAJ
S/O. PRAKASH,
AGE: 13 YEARS, MINOR UNDER
GUARDIAN OF HIS NATURAL FATHER
Digitally signed PRAKASH S/O. BASAPPA,
by SAMREEN
AYUB
DESHNUR
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: KIRLOSKAR FACTORY
Date: WORKER, R/O: HOSANINGAPUR, TQ. and DIST.
2024.02.01
15:37:34 +0530 KOPPAL.
2. N. MANOHAR
S/O. NARAYANASWAMY,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: DRIVER OF LORRY
NO. TN-33/Q-8039,
R/O: AYYANTHATTAM, PERIYA AGRAGARAM
POST, ERODE. (TAMIL NADU)
3. R. MUBARAK ALI
S/O. THIRU S.V. ABDUL RAZAK,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF LORRY
NO. TN-33/Q-8039,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:1111
MFA No. 23584 of 2011
R/O: 166, SURAMPATTI NALL ROAD,
ERODE-9. (TAMIL NADU)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY MISS. KAVYA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. H.N. GULARADDI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SERVICE TO R2 HELD SUFFICIENT;
NOTICE TO R3 SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF M.V. ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED: 09.03.2011, PASSED IN M.V.C. NO.323/2005
ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL MACT & PRESIDING
OFFICER FAST TRACK COURT-I, AT KOPPAL, AWARDING THE
COMPENSATION OF RS.95,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE
OF 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF
DEPOSIT.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.G.N.Raichur, learned counsel for the
appellant - Insurance Company and Miss.Kavya on behalf
of Sri.H.N.Gularaddi for the respondent - claimant.
2. Insurance Company is in appeal challenging the
validity of the judgment and award passed in MVC
No.323/2005 dated 09.03.2011 on the file of the
Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Koppal.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:1111
3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for
disposal of this case are as under:
3.1 A claim petition came to be filed under Section
166 of Motor Vehicles Act contending that on 31.12.2004
at 12.30 p.m. near Government Primary School of
Hosaningapur village on NH-13 when the claimant was
proceeding in the road by walk, a lorry bearing No.TN-
33/Q-8039 came in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed against the claimant, whereby he fell down and
sustained injuries and he was shifted to Government
Hospital, Munirabad and then he was referred to Victoria
Hospital, Bengaluru and thus, he laid a claim for awarding
suitable compensation.
3.2 In pursuance of the notice issued in the claim
petition, the owner of the lorry and Insurance Company
appeared and filed written statements. They denied the
claim petition averments.
3.3 The Tribunal after raising necessary issues,
recorded the evidence of the claimant and officer of the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:1111
Insurance Company and on cumulative consideration of
the oral and documentary evidence placed on record,
allowed the claim petition in a sum of Rs.95,000/- with
interest at 8% per annum and directed the Insurance
Company to pay the compensation at the first instance
and recover the same from the owner of the lorry.
4. Being aggrieved by the same, Insurance
Company is in appeal.
5. Reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal
memorandum, Sri.G.N.Raichur, learned counsel
representing the appellant - Insurance Company
vehemently contended that there is a clear discussion by
the Tribunal in the impugned judgment itself as to the fact
that the driver of the offending lorry did not possess
driving licence which stood expired on 25.09.2004 and the
accident has occurred on 31.12.2004. Thus, as on the date
of the accident the driving licence was not renewed and
the same is clearly depicted in Ex.R.6 and sought for
NC: 2024:KHC-D:1111
allowing the appeal by exonerating the liability of the
Insurance Company.
6. Per contra, Miss.Kavya appearing for the
claimant supported the impugned judgment and sought for
dismissal of the appeal.
7. In view of the rival contentions of the parties,
this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
Perused.
8. On such perusal of material on record, it is
crystal clear from Ex.R.6 that the driving licence possessed
by the first respondent who is the driver of the offending
lorry got expired on 25.09.2004 and the same was not
renewed within 30 days as is contemplated under the
Motor Vehicles Act.
9. The accident has occurred on 31.12.2004.
Admittedly, as on the date of the accident the driver of the
lorry did not possess valid driving licence. Therefore, the
Tribunal erred in fastening liability at the first instance to
NC: 2024:KHC-D:1111
be paid by the Insurance Company and directing the same
to be recovered from the owner of the lorry. Therefore, to
that extent, the appeal should succeed.
10. Though learned counsel for the appellant has
disputed involvement of the very lorry in question, the
accident having been established by placing necessary oral
and documentary evidence on record by the claimant, the
Tribunal having awarded Rs.95,000/- along with interest
at 8% per annum and the claimant having not questioned
the quantum of compensation, this Court is of the
considered opinion that allowing the appeal of the
Insurance Company by exonerating the liability of the
Insurance Company would meet the ends of justice.
11. In view of the foregoing discussion, following
order is passed:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:1111
(ii) While maintaining the quantum of
compensation ordered by the Tribunal,
liability of the appellant - Insurance Company
is hereby exonerated.
(iii) The adjudged compensation is recoverable by
the claimant from the owner of the lorry who
is second respondent in the claim petition.
(iv) Amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to be
returned to the Insurance Company under
identification.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SH
