Karnataka High Court
Amol vs Mahendra Motilal Mutha And Anr on 5 March, 2024
Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1953-DB
MFA No.202574 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.202574 OF 2022 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
AMOL
S/O SHRIMANT DARADE
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: CLEANER
R/O: BARADAKHEDA, BADANAPURA
JALNA DISTRICT (MAHARASTRA)
NOW AT BHAVASAR NAGAR
VIJAYAPURA-586 101
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI KOUJALAGI CHANDRAKANT LAXMAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
VARSHA N
RASALKAR 1. MR. MAHENDRA MOTILAL MUTHA
Location: High
Court Of Karnataka AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O: C-3/20 C-SECTOR TOWN
CENTRE CIDCO
AURANGABAD- 431 001
(MAHARASHTRA STATE)
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COM. LTD.,
BIDARI COMPLEX, S.S.FRONT ROAD,
VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SANJAY M. JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1953-DB
MFA No.202574 of 2022
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 16.04.2022 PASSED IN M.V.C.NO.12/2020
ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL NO.XV, VIJAYAPURA AT VIJAYAPURA AND ALLOW
THIS APPEAL BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT BY
RS.22,67,600/- ONLY AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY
H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been
filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment and
award dated 16.04.2022 passed by the IV Additional
Senior Civil Judge and Member MACT-XV, Vijayapura in
MVC No.12/2020.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly
stated are that on 01.07.2019 at about 3.30 p.m., on
NH.13 road near Ballolli village bridge, the claimant who
was working as cleaner in the Vishal Logistic Transport in
lorry bearing registration No.MH-20/CT-2673, at that time,
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1953-DB
due to high speed and rash and negligent driving of lorry,
driver lost control over the lorry and dashed to front going
tipper and caused accident. Due to the said impact, the
claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.
3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the
Act seeking compensation. It was pleaded that he spent
huge amount towards medical expenses, conveyance
charges, etc. It was further pleaded that the accident
occurred purely on account of the rash and negligent
driving of the lorry by its driver.
4. On service of notice, the respondent No.2 appeared
through counsel and filed written statement denying the
averments made in the claim petition. The respondent
No.1 did not appear before the Tribunal inspite of service
of notice and was placed ex-parte.
5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Claims
Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the
evidence. The claimant himself was examined as PW-1 and
Dr.Rahul Tanga was examined as PW-2 and got exhibited
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1953-DB
documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. On behalf of the
respondent No.2, one witness was examined as RW-1 and
got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R3. The
Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia,
held that the accident took place on account of rash and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, as a
result of which, the claimant sustained injuries. The
Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a
compensation of Rs.4,32,400/- along with interest at the
rate of 6% p.a. and directed the respondent No.1-owner of
the offending vehicle to pay the compensation amount
along with interest. Being aggrieved of the same, the
present appeal has been filed.
6. The learned counsel for the claimant has raised the
following contentions:
a) Firstly, as on the date of accident, the driver of the
offending vehicle was having LMV (Transport) licence and
he was driving a non-transport heavy goods vehicle. Since
the insured has violated the policy conditions, the
Insurance Company has been exonerated.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1953-DB
b) Secondly, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the cases of NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED VS. SWARAN SINGH AND
OTHERS [(2004)3 SCC 297], PAPPU AND OTHERS
VS. VINOD KUMAR LAMBA AND ANOTHER [(2018)3
SCC 208] and also the Full Bench judgment of this Court
in the case of NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
BIJAPUR vs. YALLAVVA AND ANOTHER [ILR 2020
Kar.2239], held that even if the driver of the offending
vehicle was not possessing valid driving licence as on the
date of accident, the Insurance Company is liable to pay
compensation to the claimant at the first instance, with
liberty to recover the same from the owner of the
offending vehicle. Therefore, he sought for allowing the
appeal.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
Insurance Company has raised following counter
contentions:
a) Firstly, it is not in dispute that driver of the offending
vehicle was having driving licence to drive LMV (Transport)
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1953-DB
vehicle and he was driving a non-transport heavy goods
vehicle, since the insured has violated the policy
conditions, he contended that the Insurance Company is
not liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal has
rightly exonerated the Insurance Company from paying
compensation. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the
appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.
9. It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained
injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on 01.07.2019
due to rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry
bearing registration No. MH-20/CT-2673 by its driver. It is
also not in dispute that driver of the offending vehicle was
having driving licence to drive LMV (Transport) vehicle but
he was driving the non-transport heavy goods vehicle.
Since insured has violated the policy conditions, the
Tribunal has rightly exonerated the Insurance Company
from paying compensation. However, in view of judgment
of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'PAPPU' (supra)
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1953-DB
SWARAN SINGH (supra) and YALLAVVA (supra), the
Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the
claimant at the first instance, with liberty to recover the
same from the owner of the offending vehicle.
10. In the result, the following order is passed:
ORDER
a) The appeal is allowed in part.
b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.
c) The Insurance Company is directed to pay the entire
compensation with interest at 6% within six weeks
from today with liberty to recover the same from the
owner of the offending vehicle.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
VNR
Ct;Vk
