Karnataka High Court
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Pradyumna (Minor) on 2 January, 2024
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:62
MFA No. 5284 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5284 OF 2018 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
3RD FLOOR, HIGH LANE PLAZA,
M.G. ROAD, KASARAGOD
KASARAGOD TALUK & DISTRICT
KERALA STATE
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. RENUKA H R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. PRADYUMNA (MINOR)
Digitally signed by S/O RAMACHANDRA BHAT
RAMYA D
Location: HIGH COURT
AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS,
OF KARNATAKA R/AT KADENGODLU HOUSE
PERUVAI VILLAGE AND POST
BANTWAL TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 574 211.
REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN
RAMACHANDRA BHAT A
S/O GOPALAKRISHNA BHAT
R/AT KADENGODLU HOUSE
PERUVAI VILLAGE & POST
BANTWAL TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 574 211.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:62
MFA No. 5284 of 2018
2. AKSHITH K
S/O. UMESH
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
S/O UMESH
H.NO. 708/VI, KUMBLA GP
RAJEEV GANDHI COLONY, KUMBLA
NARAYANAMANGALA POST
KASARAGOD TALUK & DISTRICT - 671 321.
3. PRABHAKARA K
S/O SEETHARAMA K RAO
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
LAXMI NIVAS, KUNTANGARADKA HOUSE
MAYIPPADI VILLAGE, KUMBLA
MANJESHWARA TALUK - 671 323.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.G. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 AND R3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28/03/2018, PASSED IN MVC
NO.1339/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE & JMFC., AND MACT-IX, BANTWAL, D.K., AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.2,68,564/- ALONG WITH INTEREST AT
6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE DOF
DEPOSIT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The present appeal is filed by the appellant-
Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award
dated 28.03.2018 in MVC.No.1339/2016 passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IX & in the Court of Prl.
NC: 2024:KHC:62
Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Bantwal, Dakshina Kannada,
questioning the liability fixed on it.
2. The factum of accident and injuries sustained
by the claimant are not disputed. The disputed question is
whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay
compensation or not.
3. Heard the arguments from both sides and
perused the records.
4. The Tribunal has granted compensation of
Rs.2,68,564/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.,
from the date of petition till the date of deposit and fixed
the liability on the appellant/Insurance Company to pay
compensation.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance
Company submitted that the Ape Auto/Mahindra was
NC: 2024:KHC:62
having permit to ply in Kasaragod District, Kerala State,
but the accident took place in the Karnataka State, which
is the boundary area between the States of Karnataka and
Kerala. Admittedly, the permit is to ply within Kerala State
and the accident has taken place in Karnataka State.
Therefore, violation of conditions of insurance policy is
proved. It is not the mere question of deviated route, but
the accident has taken place in other State. Therefore, the
Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner
and to pay compensation. But the claimant is the third
party.
6. Therefore, as per Sub-section (2) of Section
149 of Motor Vehicle Act, when the Insurance Company
established the fact that the driver was not holding valid
driving licence, then as per Sub-sections (1), (4), (7) of
Section 149 of Motor Vehicle Act, the Insurance Company
as if the judgment debtor shall satisfy the claim in respect
of third parties and then recover the same from the owner
NC: 2024:KHC:62
of Ape Auto. Accordingly, the order of pay and recovery is
made as per the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the cases of PAPPU AND OTHERS Vs.
VINOD KUMAR LAMBA AND ANOTHER1; NATIONAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. SWARAN
SINGH AND OTHERS 2 and also as per the full bench
decision of this Court in the case of NEW INDIA
ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. YELLAVVA AND
ANOTHER3. Accordingly, an order of pay and recovery is
made. To this extent, the judgment and award passed by
the Tribunal is modified.
7. Therefore, the Insurance Company shall pay
compensation to the claimant at the first instance and
then recover it from the owner of Ape Auto. The appellant-
Insurance Company is given liberty to file execution case
before the concerned Executing Court and may seek
attachment of movable or immovable property of the
(2018) 3 SCC 208
(2004) 3 SCC 297
2020 ACJ 2560
NC: 2024:KHC:62
owner of Ape Auto till recovery of the amount from the
owner. Hence, in terms of the above, appeal is liable to be
allowed in part.
8. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed-in-part.
ii. The impugned judgment and award dated
28.03.2018 in MVC.No.1339/2016 passed by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IX & in the
Court of Prl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC,
Bantwal, Dakshina Kannada, is modified.
iii. No order as to costs.
iv. The appellant-Insurance Company shall pay
compensation to the claimant at the first
instance and then recover it from the owner of
Ape Auto.
NC: 2024:KHC:62
v. The appellant-Insurance Company is given
liberty to file execution case before the
concerned Executing Court and may seek
attachment of movable or immovable property
of the owner of Ape Auto till recovery of the
amount from the owner.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PB
