Karnataka High Court
Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance ... vs Chandrakala And Ors on 8 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8293
MFA No. 200058 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200058 OF 2020 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. CHOLAMANDALAM M.S. GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD.
NO. 116/17, NIRMAL BUILDING
OPP: COSMOPOLTAN CLUB
DOUBLE ROAD, BELLARY.
(THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY).
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. CHANDRAKALA
W/O LATE. NARENDRA
AGE: 29 YEARS
Digitally signed by OCC: HOUSEWIFE
RENUKA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. MASTER YUVARAJ
KARNATAKA S/O LATE. NARENDRA
AGE: 09 YEARS
OCC: STUDENT
3. MASTER MAHESH
S/O LATE. NARENDRA
AGE: 05 YEARS
OCC: STUDENT
R-2 & R-3 BEING MINOR U/G OF MOTHER R-1.
4. ERAMMA W/O NARASAPPA
AGE: 63 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8293
MFA No. 200058 of 2020
OCC: NIL
ALL R/O: URABAVI THUTA
ASKINAL, RAICHUR-584 102.
5. MANJUNATHAYYA S/O YADAVAYYA
AGE: 24 YEARS
OCC: DRIVER
R/O: HIREBANA STREET
OPP: COURT, LAKSHMESHWAR
TQ: SHIRAHATTI
DIST: GADAG-582 166.
6. SHIVAKUMAR HIREMATH
S/O GANGADHARAYYA
AGE: 32 YEARS
OCC: BUSINESS
R/O: HIREBANA STREET, OPP: COURT
LAKSHMESHWAR, TQ: SHIRAHATTI
DIST: GADAG-582 166.
...RESPONDENTS
(R1, R4 AND R6 ARE SERVED;
R2 AND R3 ARE MINORS R/BY R1;
R5 IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O/D 25.11.2022)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MVC ACT,
PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.06.2019, IN MVC
NO.191/2016 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC AND MACT, AT RAICHUR, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8293
MFA No. 200058 of 2020
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
The captioned appeal is by the Insurance company
challenging the liability on the ground that the driver of
the offending vehicle did not possess effective driving
license. The appeal is primarily on liability.
2. The claimants have filed a claim petition
following the tragic loss of Narendra, who died in a road
traffic accident on 21.09.2015. The appellant, an insurance
company, contested this claim, arguing that the driver of
the offending vehicle lacked a valid and effective driving
license at the time of the accident. Although the driver's
license was produced and marked as Ex.P-8 in evidence,
the Tribunal overlooked this crucial document. Instead,
the Tribunal relied on the charge sheet, which merely
indicated that the driver did not possess an effective
driving license. The Tribunal erroneously presumed that
the insurance company had failed to demonstrate the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8293
driver's lack of a valid license. This presumption is
evidently flawed, as it disregards the evidence introduced
by the claimants themselves.
3. Ex.P-8 is a certified copy of the driver's license,
which provides critical information regarding the validity
and limitations of the driver's licensing status. Upon
careful examination, it becomes evident that, as of the
date of the accident, the driver held a license authorizing
him only to operate a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV).
Importantly, the endorsement on the license indicates that
the driver was not licensed to drive a medium-heavy
goods vehicle until 2018, with the valid period for this
category of license extending from 24.04.2018 to
23.04.2021. This timeline clearly shows that on the
accident date i.e., 21.09.2015, the driver was not
authorized to operate a medium-heavy goods vehicle.
Despite this conclusive evidence, which was a part of the
Tribunal's record, the Tribunal incorrectly ruled that the
insurance company failed to establish the driver's lack of
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8293
an effective driving license. This finding is, therefore,
perverse and evidently incorrect, failing to consider the
material evidence.
4. Nevertheless, the law as established by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pappu & Others v.
Vinod Kumar Lamba and Another1, and as reiterated
by the Full Bench judgment in New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. v. Yallavva2, clarifies the position on the liability of
insurance companies in similar cases. According to these
rulings, the insurance company, despite any concerns
regarding the validity of the driver's license, is primarily
obligated to fulfill the compensation claim and
subsequently has the right to recover this compensation
amount from the owner of the offending vehicle. Based on
this legal principle, this Court finds that the insurance
company is indeed liable to satisfy the awarded
AIR 2018 SC 592
AIR 2020 Kar 986
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8293
compensation to the claimants but may, thereafter, pursue
recovery from the vehicle owner.
5. In light of these considerations, this Court
issues the following order:
ORDER
(i) The appeal filed by the insurance
company is allowed in part;
(ii) The judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal in MVC.No.191/2016 is hereby modified
to align with the findings of this Court;
(iii) The appellant, namely the insurance
company, is directed to satisfy the awarded
compensation by depositing the compensation
amount, inclusive of the interest rate specified
by the Tribunal, without further delay;
(iv) The insurance company is granted
liberty to recover the entire compensation
amount, post-payment, from the owner of the
offending vehicle;
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8293
(v) Any amounts already deposited with the
Court shall be remitted to the Tribunal
immediately to facilitate the disbursement
process.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
CA
