Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager The United India ... vs Shridevi W/O Rajshekhar Jamadar And Ors on 31 July, 2024
Author: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5501
MFA No. 201496 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201496 OF 2022 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED
DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
SHOP NO. 28, 1ST FLOOR,
UNITY ZONE COMPLEX,
BESIDES NAGESHWAR SCHOOL,
HUMNABAD ROAD,
NEHRU GUNJ,
KALABURAGI-584104.
PRESENT ADDRESS: CENTURY COMPLEX,
2NDFLOOR, OPP. SANGAM TALKIES,
SUPER MARKET,
Digitally signed KALABURAGI-585101.
by RENUKA
Location: HIGH ...APPELLANT
COURT OF
KARNATAKA (BY SRI MOHD ABDUL QUAYUM, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRIDEVI
W/O RAJSHEKHAR JAMADAR
AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
2. RAJSHEKHAR
S/O MALLESHAPPA JAMADAR
AGE. 39 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURAL LABOUR,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5501
MFA No. 201496 of 2022
BOTH R/O. H.NO. 109, VILLAGE JAMGA-R,
TQ. ALAND, DISTRICT KALABURAGI,
NOW RESIDING AT DEVI NAGAR,
ALAND ROAD, KALABURAGI-585103.
3. GOUDAPPA
S/O SHIVARUDRA HATARKI
AGE. MAJOR, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. JUNIPETH, OMERGA,
TQ. OMERGA,
DISTRICT OSMANABAD,
MAHARASHTRA-413606.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SANJEEV PATIL, ADV. FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO
CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN MVC NO.507/2018 BY THE III
ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, KALABURAGI AND SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.04.2022
PASSED IN MVC NO.507/2018 BY THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND MACT, KALABURAGI EXONERATING THE
APPELLANT OF ITS LIABILITY AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)
1. The appeal is by the insurer challenging the award of
Rs.4,65,000/- granted for the death of a minor boy--
Shashidhar, who was killed in a road traffic accident which
occurred on 11.02.2018.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5501
2. The only ground urged by the insurer is that the
driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a driving
licence and despite issuance of notice to the owner and
the investigating officer, the driving licence was not
furnished.
3. The Tribunal has taken into consideration that a
notice had been given to the owner and the investigating
officer for furnishing the driving licence, but it was not
clear as to what further steps were taken thereafter.
4. It is also observed that the charge-sheet that had
been filed by the Police only indicates commission of
offences under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 ("IPC") and there was no allegation that the
driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and
effective driving licence as on the date of the accident and
therefore, the Tribunal has proceeded on the presumption
that the driver of the vehicle did possess a driving licence.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5501
5. In my view, this reasoning of the Tribunal cannot be
found fault with.
6. If the investigating officer, on investigation had laid a
charge-sheet only under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC,
the Tribunal was justified in presuming that the
investigating officer was satisfied that the driver of the
vehicle did possess a valid and effective driving licence.
7. I find no reason to entertain the appeal and
therefore, the appeal is dismissed.
8. The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transferred to
the Tribunal for disbursal in terms of the award.
9. In view of the disposal of the appeal, all pending
interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)
JUDGE
RK
CT: VD
