Karnataka High Court
The Branch Manager vs Sakina Bee @ Sabeena Begum And Anr on 8 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8235
MFA No. 200553 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.200553 OF 2020 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER,
NATIONAL INS. CO. LTD.,
IT'S BRANCH OFFICE NO.12-10-97/57,
S.S. TOWERS, FIRST FLOOR,
PARAS GARDEN,
RAICHUR. (NOW BY AUTHORISED
SIGNATORY, DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
STATION ROAD, KALABURAGI).
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
RENUKA AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 1. SAKINA BEE @ SABEENA BEGUM
KARNATAKA
W/O LATE SYED HAMEED PASHA,
AGE: 30 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD, NOW NIL,
R/O: H.NO. 1-6,
SANKANUR VILLAGE,
TQ: AND DIST: RAICHUR-584101.
2. RAJANNA S/O MAREPPA,
AGE: 33 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: H.NO.92,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8235
MFA No. 200553 of 2020
KUDLOOR VILLAGE,
TQ: AND DIST: RAICHUR-584101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI BABU H. METAGUDDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI MAHADEV S. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS AND ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.11.2019 IN
MVC NO.252/2019 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND MACT, RAICHUR.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
The captioned appeal is by the insurance company
challenging the liability fastened by the Tribunal by
declining to accede the objection raised by the insurance
company that liability to indemnify the insured in the case
on hand would not arise for want of fitness certificate.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8235
2. This issue is dealt by catena of judgments
rendered by this Court. The Division Bench of this Court in
MFA No.6621/2006 C/w MFA Crob.No.304/2006 in
the case of New India Assurance Company Limited
Vs. N. Srinivasa Murthy and others held that the
absence of fitness certificate cannot be reasoned to deny
the compensation to the claimant. Similar view was
expressed in the case of Branch Manager Vs. H D
Channadevaiah and others in MFA 4428/2013 C/o
MFA No.3553/2013.
3. The Full Bench while answering the reference in
the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Bijapur Vs.
Yallavva and Another1 has held that even if insurance
company is able to substantiate its defence under Section
149-1(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the primary liability to
indemnify the insured is not absolved. The Full Bench in
the case of Yallavva has clearly held that the rights of
third parties needs to be protected and any breach of
2020 (2) KCCR 1405 (FB)
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8235
policy conditions will not absolve the primary liability of
the insurance company.
4. In the light of the judgment rendered by
Division Bench in the above cited miscellaneous first
appeals, the Tribunal was justified in holding that
insurance company is jointly and severally liable to satisfy
the compensation along with the owner. The findings
recorded by the Tribunal clearly align with the law laid
down by the Division Bench of this Court cited supra. The
appeal is devoid of merits and stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
RSP
CT-SW
