Karnataka High Court
Iffco Tokio Generalf Insurance vs Ravi And Anr on 31 July, 2024
Author: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5523
MFA No. 201687 of 2017
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. 201687 OF 2017 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
IFFCO TOKIO GENERALF INSURANCE
CO. LTD.,
THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
CLAIMS DEPARTMENT,
HEAD CUSTOMER SERVICE CENTER, KSCMF
BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR,
3RD BLOCK, CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
BANGALORE-
(NOW REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED
SIGNATORY, BANGALORE).
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed (BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE)
by SUMITRA
SHERIGAR
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. RAVI S/O IRAPPA CHAVAN,
AGE: 18 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
NOW MAJOR,
R/O: BALICHAKRA DODDA TANDA,
TQ & DIST: YADGIR-585201.
2. GOPAL @ GOPYA
S/O KASANYA RATHOD
AGE: 37 YEARS,
OCC: OWNER OF TRACTOR AND TROLLEY
BEARING NO.KA-33/T-9492 AND 9493,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5523
MFA No. 201687 of 2017
R/O. BALICHAKRA SANNA TANDA,
TQ & DIST: YADGIR-585201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, ADV. FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO
SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 20.07.2017 IN MVC NO.99/2015 PASSED BY THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT AT YADGIRI.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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 insurance company is in appeal challenging the
award of Rs.6,51,000/- granted by the Tribunal for the
injuries caused to the claimant, a 16 year old boy.
2. It is the case of the insurance company that it would
not be liable to pay the compensation since the driver of
the tractor did not possess a valid and effective driving
license. The Tribunal has, however, not accepted this
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5523
contention on the ground that the insurance company
failed to establish this assertion.
3. The other contention advanced by the insurance
company is that the trailer was not insured and therefore,
on the basis of the insurance policy given in favour of the
tractor, the liability cannot be fastened on it.
4. The Tribunal taking note of the fact that even if the
contention of the insurance company was to be accepted
regarding the driver of the Tractor not possessing a driving
licence, that would clearly amount to violation of the policy
conditions.
5. In light of the Full Bench decision of this Court in
New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Yallavva
and another, ILR 2020 KAR 2239,, this would amount
to a breach of policy conditions, in which event, the
insurance company would have to satisfy the
compensation and thereafter, proceed to recover from the
owner of the offending vehicle.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5523
6. Thus, in this case, it would be appropriate to hold
that the insurance company would be liable to satisfy the
compensation and thereafter, proceed to recover the same
from the owner of the offending vehicle and establish that
the tractor was being driven by a person who did not
possess a valid and effective driving licence.
7. As far as the contention that the trailer was not
insured and therefore, the insurance given to the tractor
cannot be utilized to fasten the liability on it is concerned,
it is to be noticed here that the trailer has no independent
existence when it is in use with the tractor. It is essentially
the use of the tractor, which makes the trailer mobile,
which in turn, causes the accident.
8. It is therefore clear that the accident occurred as a
result of the use of the tractor, which in turn resulted in
the trailer becoming mobile, which had been insured.
Hence, the insurance company would be liable to pay the
compensation for an accident arising out of the use of the
tractor even if an uninsured trailer is attached to it.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5523
9. Subject to the above clarification, the appeal is
dismissed.
10. The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transferred to
the Tribunal for disbursal in terms of the award.
11. In view of the disposal of the appeal, all pending
interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)
JUDGE
RK
