Karnataka High Court
The Manager The United India vs Tanga Lakshmi And Ors on 26 June, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4336-DB
MFA No. 200278 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200278 OF 2023 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
RAICHUR - 584 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MOHD ABDUL QUAYUM, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
BASALINGAPPA 1. SMT. TANGA LAKSHMI
SHIVARAJ
DHUTTARGAON W/O VELU,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AGE: 57 YEARS,
KARNATAKA
OCC: HOUSEHOLD AFFAIRS.
2. SHRI. VELU
S/O ANNAMALAI,
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: NOW NIL,
R/O JATTI COLONY,
NEAR JUNIOR COLLEGE HUTTI MEDINAPUR,
TQ. LINGASUGUR,
NOW RESIDING AT NIJALINGAPPA COLONY,
RAICHUR - 584 101.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4336-DB
MFA No. 200278 of 2023
3. SHIVAKUMAR
S/O MANAPPA BADIGER @ MANAPPA,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER CUM OWNER OF AUTO
KA-36/B-8040, R/O GOREBAL
TQ. LINGASUGUR,
DISTRICT: RAICHUR - 584 127.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADV. FOR R1 AND R2;
NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
20.09.2022 PASSED IN M.V.C NO.452/2020 BY THE II ADDL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT RAICHUR, EXONERATING THE
APPELLANT OF ITS LIABILITY. PASS ANY SUCH ORDER THAT
THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY
ASHOK S. KINAGI J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the
Insurance Company under Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act') challenging the judgment
and award dated 20.09.2022 passed in
M.V.C.No.452/2020 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge
and MACT, at Raichur (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Tribunal', for short).
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4336-DB
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are
referred to as per their ranking before the Claims Tribunal.
3. The brief facts leading rise to filing of this
appeal are as under:
On 07.03.2020, Sachin was returning from
Lingasugur to Hutti on his motorcycle bearing registration
No.KA-36/EN-4774 and when he reached near KEB
plantation on Gudadanal-Lingasugur road, the respondent
No.1 driving his auto bearing registration No.KA-36/B-
8040 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the
motorcycle of Sachin. Due to accident, Sachin sustained
grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The
claimants being the legal representatives filed the claim
petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act seeking
for compensation on account of the death of Sachin in the
road traffic accident.
4. The respondent No.2 filed the written statement
denying the averments made in the claim petition and
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4336-DB
contended that the accident was solely due to negligent
act on the part of the deceased Sachin and denied the
liability and prays to dismiss the claim petition.
Respondent No.1 in spite of service of notice
remained absent, hence placed ex parte.
5. The Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of the
parties framed the issues. The petitioners, in order to
substantiate their claim, petitioner No.1 examined as PW.1
and also examined Deputy Manager of Hutti Gold Mines as
PW.2 in order to establish that the deceased Sachin was
working in the Hutti Gold Mines and got marked 13
documents as Exs.P1 to 13. In rebuttal, respondent No.2
examined its Administrative Officer as RW.1 and got
marked 1 document as Ex.R1.
6. The Tribunal, after recording the evidence,
hearing on both sides and on assessment of oral and
documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part
with costs and it is ordered that the petitioners are entitled
for compensation of Rs.33,93,764/- along with interest at
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4336-DB
the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its
realization and held that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are
jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation
amount and directed the respondent No.2 to deposit the
compensation amount within a period of two months from
the award.
7. The Insurance Company aggrieved by the
judgment and award passed by the Tribunal has filed this
Miscellaneous First Appeal challenging the liability.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the
appellant/respondent No.2 and also learned counsel for
respondents/petitioners.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2
submits that respondent No.1 was not possessing a valid
driving license as on the date of accident hence there is a
violation of terms of policy. Hence, the Insurance
Company is not liable to pay the compensation amount as
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4336-DB
awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, on these grounds, he
prays to allow the appeal.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that the claimants have produced the
xerox copy of driving license of respondent No.1 and the
said document was not disputed by respondent No.2. He
submits that, as on the date of accident, respondent No.1
was holding valid and effective driving license. Hence, he
submits that the Tribunal was justified in passing the
impugned judgment. Hence, on these grounds, he prays
to dismiss the appeal.
11. We have perused the records and considered
the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
parties. The point that arises for our consideration is with
regard to liability.
12. It is not in dispute that Sachin met with an
accident and succumbed to the injuries. In order to
establish that the accident was occurred due to rash and
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4336-DB
negligent driving of respondent No.1, the petitioners have
produced the copy of the FIR marked as Ex.P1 and charge
sheet marked as Ex.P10 which discloses that the accident
was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the offending vehicle. The charge sheet is filed
against respondent No.1 and further the claimants have
produced xerox copy of driving license of respondent No.1.
The said fact has not been disputed by the respondent
No.1. The Tribunal looking into the Xerox copy of the
driving license of the driver of offending vehicle has
recorded a finding that respondent No.1 was possessing a
valid and effective driving license as on the date of
accident and charge sheet is also filed against respondent
No.1, the deceased Sachin had not contributed for the
cause of accident. The Tribunal was justified in fastening
the liability on respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly. We do not
find any error in the impugned judgment.
13. In view of the above discussion, we proceed to
pass the following:
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4336-DB
ORDER
i. The appeal is dismissed.
ii. The impugned judgment and
award passed by the Tribunal is
confirmed.
iii. Amount in deposit shall be
transmitted to the Tribunal. No
order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
HKV
CT;BN
