Karnataka High Court
The Manager vs Maligegowda on 1 March, 2024
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:8631
MFA No. 6562 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6562 OF 2015(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
MANJUNATHESHWARA COMPLEX,
OLD BUS STAND ROAD,
P.B.NO.112, HASSAN.
BY NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.144,
SUBHARAM COMPLEX, M.G.ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. O.MAHESH., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MALIGEGOWDA
S/O LATE GIDDEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
Digitally signed by
THEJASKUMAR N SHANTHIGRAMA,
Location: HIGH HASSAN TALUK-573 201.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. KUMARA,
MAJOR,
GORAPPA,
BEHIND MISSION HOSPITAL,
HASSAN-573 201.
3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
CHANDANA COMPLEX, HARSHAMAHAL ROAD,
HASSAN-573 201.
4. K.G.KRISHNAKUMAR,
S/O JAVARE GOWDA,
MAJOR,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:8631
MFA No. 6562 of 2015
KAMASANDRA VILLAGE,
MAVINAKERE POST,
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK,
HASSAN-573 201.
...RESPONDENTS
(R1 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
R2 AND 4 - HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DATED: 02.04.2018
BY SRI. S.V.HEGDE MULKHAND., ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 09.06.2015
PASSED IN MVC NO.1475/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT, HASSAN.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON
FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Sri.O.Mahesh., learned counsel for the appellant has
appeared through video conferencing.
Sri.S.V.Hegde Mulkhand., learned counsel for respondent
No.3 has appeared in person.
2. Notice to respondents was ordered on 23.09.2015.
A perusal of the office note depicts that respondent No.1 is
served and unrepresented and notice to respondents 2 and 4 is
held sufficient vide order dated:02.04.2018. They have neither
NC: 2024:KHC:8631
engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as
party in person.
3. Though the appeal is listed today for orders, with
the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, it is
heard finally.
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be
referred to as per their status and rankings before the Tribunal.
5. It is the case of the claimant that on the 20th day of
February 2011 at about 4:30 pm., when he was proceeding in a
Maxi Cab bearing registration No.KA-13-5274 near H.B.Petrol
Bunk, Hassan Mysore Road, Holenarasipura, a lorry bearing
Registration No.KA-13 A-5213 came in rash and negligent
manner and hit their cab. Due to the impact, the claimant
sustained grievous injuries and he has taken treatment at
Holenarispura Government Hospital and then at NIMHANS
Hospital, Bengaluru. Contending that the accident occurred on
account of rash and negligent driving of the Lorry, the claimant
filed the claim petition seeking compensation.
In response to the notice, the case against respondent
No.1 was dismissed. Respondent No.3 remained absent.
NC: 2024:KHC:8631
Respondents 2 and 4 appeared through their counsel and filed
separate written statement. The second respondent contended
that the driver of the Maxi Cab was not having valid and
effective driving license as on the date of accident. The fourth
respondent while admitting the issuance of insurance policy in
respect of lorry bearing registration No.KA-13 A-5213,
restricted its liability to the terms and conditions of the policy.
It also contended that the driver of the lorry did not possess
valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident
and there is a violation of the terms and conditions of the
policy. Among other grounds, they prayed for dismissal of the
petition.
Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed
issues. The parties led evidence and marked the documents.
The Tribunal vide Judgment dated:09.06.2015 allowed the
petition in part. It is this Judgment that is called into question
in this appeal by the Insurance Company on several grounds as
set-out in the Memorandum of appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant and respondent
No.3 have urged several contentions.
NC: 2024:KHC:8631
Sri.O.Mahesh., learned counsel for the appellant in
presenting his arguments strenuously urged that the Driver of
the Lorry was not having a valid and effective driving license as
on the date of the accident. He argued by saying that the
driving license was issued for the first time in favor of B.Lokesh
on 12.01.2006 to be valid till 11.01.2026 and he was further
authorized to drive PSV, HPV and HTV with effect from
11.02.2008 till 10.02.2011 and it was not renewed thereafter.
The Tribunal has overlooked this aspect of the matter and has
erroneously fastened 50% liability on the National Insurance
Company Limited. Counsel therefore, submits that the appeal
may be allowed.
Learned counsel for respondent No.3 justified the
Judgment and award of the Tribunal. He submits that the New
India Assurance Company Limited has satisfied the award.
Counsel therefore, submits that appropriate order may be
passed.
Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective
parties and perused the appeal papers and the records with
utmost care.
NC: 2024:KHC:8631
7. The point that requires consideration is whether the
Tribunal is justified in fixing 50% liability on the National
Insurance Company Limited?
8. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require
reiteration. Perused the records with utmost care. Ex.R.6 is the
History Sheet of the Driving License of a Driver B.Lokesh issued
by the RTO, Hassan. The driver B.Lokesh was authorized to
drive HTV and HPV with effect from 11.02.2008 Badge
No.12494 and it was valid upto 10.02.2011. Admittedly, the
accident occurred on the 20th day of February 2011, however,
the license had already expired on the 10th day of February
2011 and it was not renewed. If that be so, it can be safely
concluded that the Driver was not having valid and effective
driving license as on the date of the accident in question and as
such, the appellant/ insurer of Lorry was not liable at all.
The Apex Court in catena of decisions has held that that if
there is a breach of terms of the policy and the Insurance
Company cannot be held liable to satisfy the claim. Admittedly,
in the present case the license had expired ten days prior to the
occurrence of the accident and there was no renewal of license.
Hence, fixing 50% liability on the National Insurance Company
NC: 2024:KHC:8631
Limited is totally untenable. Therefore, this Court deems it
appropriate to set-aside the Judgment in so far as fixing 50%
liability on the National Insurance Company Limited.
Accordingly, the National Insurance Company Limited is
exonerated from its liability to pay compensation.
In view of exoneration of liability on the National
Insurance Company Limited, the owner of the Lorry is directed
to satisfy the 50% of the compensation amount awarded by the
Tribunal.
9. Resultantly, the Miscellaneous First Appeal is
allowed.
Office is directed to transmit the amount in deposit to the
Tribunal forthwith for refund of the same to the National
Insurance Company Limited.
Sd/-
JUDGE
TKN
