Monday, 01, Jun, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

The New India Assurance vs Sri Kadurappa
2024 Latest Caselaw 19077 Kant

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 19077 Kant
Judgement Date : 31 July, 2024

Karnataka High Court

The New India Assurance vs Sri Kadurappa on 31 July, 2024

                                             -1-
                                                     NC: 2024:KHC:30272
                                                   MFA No. 2460 of 2014




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                      DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2024

                                          BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
              MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2460 OF 2014 (MV-I)

             BETWEEN:

             THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE
             COMPANY LTD.
             TUMKUR SHOPPING COMPLEX,
             1ST FLOOR, B.H. ROAD,
             TUMKUR

             BY ITS:REGIONAL OFFICE,
             "MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS"
             2ND FLOOR, 9/2, M.G. ROAD,
             BANGALORE-560 001

                                                            ...APPELLANT
             (BY SRI. P B RAJU., ADVOCATE)

             AND:
Digitally
signed by
BHARATHI S   1.     SRI KADURAPPA
Location:           S/O NARASAPPA
HIGH COURT          (DEAD BY LRS)
OF
KARNATAKA
             1(A)   LAKSHMAMMA
                    AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,


             1(B)   GANGAMMA
                    AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

             1(C)   YASHODAMMA
                    AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

             1(D) RAJANNA
                  AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
                              -2-
                                          NC: 2024:KHC:30272
                                        MFA No. 2460 of 2014




1(E)   PUTTAMMA
       AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

1(F)   JAYAMMA
       AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

1(G) CHOWDAIAH
     AGED ABOULT 33 YEARS,

       PETITIONER NO.1 IS THE WIFE,
       AND PETITIONER NOs.2 TO 7 ARE
       THE CHILDREN OF LATE KADURAPPA
       AND ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
       HULIKAL VILLAGE,
       KUDUR HOBLI,
       MAGADI TALUK

2.     SRI VENKATESHAIAH
       S/O LATE GOVINDAIAH
       VIRAPURA,
       SUGGANAHALLI POST
       MAGADI TALUK
                                              ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. HARISH N R, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. PATEL D KAREGOWDA., ADVOCATE FOR R1 ( A TO G)
R2 SERVED)


      THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.12.2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO.337/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, MACT-1, TUMKUR,      AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF
RS.45,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL REALIZATION AND ETC.


     THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:    HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
                                                 -3-
                                                            NC: 2024:KHC:30272
                                                         MFA No. 2460 of 2014




                                    ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The above appeal is filed by the insurer under Section

173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 19881 challenging the judgment

and award dated 10.12.2013 passed in MVC No.337/2010 by

the Additional Senior Civil Judge, MACT - XI, Tumkur2,

whereunder the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition

and directed respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e., owner and insurer to

jointly and severally pay the compensation of `45,000/-

together with interest @ 6% per annum.

2. Heard submissions Sri P.B. Raju, learned counsel

appearing for the appellant and Sri Harish N.R., learned counsel

appearing for Sri Patel B. Karegoudar for respondent No.1(A to

G).

3. The sole contention putforth by the learned counsel for

the appellant is that despite there being a permit violation, the

Tribunal has erred in fastening the liability on the insurer to pay

the compensation awarded.

Hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'

Hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'

NC: 2024:KHC:30272

4. It is forthcoming that the insured vehicle i.e., Auto

rickshaw bearing registration No. KA/42- 4773 was issued with

a permit (Ex.R2) which discloses that the vehicle was permitted

to ply in Magadi Town and was valid up to 30.07.2014. It is

forthcoming that the insured vehicle was plying in Tumakuru

Town within the jurisdiction of Hebbur police Station at the time

of the accident.

5. Hence, it is clear that although the insured vehicle had a

permit the same was being plied beyond the limits of the said

permit and thus there was a violation of the said permit

condition.

6. It is relevant to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of AMRIT PAUL SINGH AND ANOTHER VS. TATA

AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND

OTHERS3 held as follows:

" 24. ........ Use of a vehicle in a public place without a permit is a fundamental statutory infraction. We are disposed to think so in view of the series of exceptions carved out in Section 66.

(2018) 7 SCC 558

NC: 2024:KHC:30272

The said situations cannot be equated with absence of licence or a fake licence or a licence for different kind of vehicle, or, for that matter, violation of a condition of carrying more number of passengers. Therefore, the principles laid down in Swaran Singh [National Insurance Co.

Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 733] and Lakhmi Chand [Lakhmi Chand v. Reliance General Insurance, (2016) 3 SCC 100 : (2016) 2 SCC (Civ) 45] in that regard would not be applicable to the case at hand. That apart, the insurer had taken the plea that the vehicle in question had no permit. It does not require the wisdom of the "Tripitaka", that the existence of a permit of any nature is a matter of documentary evidence. Nothing has been brought on record by the insured to prove that he had a permit of the vehicle. In such a situation, the onus cannot be cast on the insurer. Therefore, the Tribunal as well as the High Court had directed that the insurer was required to pay the compensation amount to the claimants with interest with the stipulation that the insurer shall be entitled to recover the same from the owner and the driver. The said directions are in consonance with the principles stated in Swaran Singh [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 733] and other cases pertaining to pay and recover principle."

NC: 2024:KHC:30272

7. In view of the settled proposition of law as held by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court as noticed above, the judgment and

award passed by the Tribunal is required to be modified to hold

that the insurer is liable to pay the compensation awarded with

liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.

Hence, the following

ORDER

i. The above appeal is partly allowed;

ii. The judgment and award dated 10.12.2013 passed in MVC No. 337/2010 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT - XI at Tumkur is modified to the extent of holding that the appellant/respondent No.2- insurer shall be liable to pay the compensation awarded with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle - respondent No.1;

iii. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in all other respects remains unaltered;

iv. The amount deposited by the appellant in the present appeal including the statutory deposit shall

NC: 2024:KHC:30272

be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement in terms of the award of the Tribunal.

SD/-

(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

BS

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter