Karnataka High Court
The Manager vs Jayappa on 22 October, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:42254
MFA No. 6473 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6473 OF 2017 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER,
M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
MANJUNATHA COMPLEX,
OLD BUS STAND RAOD,
HASSAN, NOW REP BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE,
NO 144, SHUBHARAM COMPLEX,
M G ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. A M VENKATESH.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. JAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O PUTTEGOWDA,
DODDAKOLATHUR VILLAGE,
SHANIVARASANTHE HOBLI,
Digitally signed SOMAWARAPETE TALUK,
by NANDINI R KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 236,
Location: High PRESENT R/O. JAYAPPA,
Court of S/O PUTTEGOWDA,
Karnataka C/O SAROJAMMA,
W/O HEMANTHKUMAR,
SANKESHANAHALLI VILLAGE,
DODDAPURA POST, KASABA HOBLI,
HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT - 573 201.
2. C N PRASHANTHA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
S/O SUKUMARA,
CHIKKA KOLATHUR VILLAGE,
SHANIVARASANTHE HOBLI,
SOMAWARAPETE TALUK,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:42254
MFA No. 6473 of 2017
KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 236.
3. RAVI,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
S/O SRINIVASA,
CHIKKA KOLATHUR VILLAGE,
SHANIVARASANTHE HOBLI,
SOMAWARAPETE TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 236.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SANGAMESH R B., FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.04.2017 PASSED IN MVC
NO.109/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE AND MACT, HASSAN, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
RS.2,19,300/- WITH 6% INTEREST FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
Despite granting ample opportunity learned counsel for
respondent Nos.1 to 3 has not appeared.
2. The Insurance Company is before this Court
challenging the judgment and award in MVC.No.109/2016
passed by III Additional District and Sessions Judge and
MACT, Hassan dated 07.04.2017, whereby the
NC: 2024:KHC:42254
compensation of Rs.2,19,300 was awarded and the liability
was fastened upon the appellant - Insurance Company.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that the
petitioner, who is respondent No.1 herein, was the pillion
rider on a Motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-12-L-
7744 rode by respondent No.3 - Ravi. Due to the
negligent act of the rider, the petitioner fell down and
sustained grievous injuries and later he took treatment at
the Janapriya Hospital, Hassan, as an inpatient.
4. The factum of the accident was registered by
the concerned police in Crime No.0114/2015 on the basis
of the complaint filed by the petitioner on the next day. In
the said complaint, it was stated that respondent No.1 -
Prashantha was riding the Motor cycle and the petitioner
was the pillion rider.
5. On appearance, respondent No.2 - Insurance
Company, who is the appellant herein took up the
contention that the Motor cycle was ridden by respondent
NC: 2024:KHC:42254
No.3 - Ravi, owner and since he was not having a valid
Driving Licence, in order to fasten the liability on the
Insurance Company, a false complaint has been filed
wherein respondent No.1 - Prashantha is shown as the
rider of the Motor cycle.
6. Apart from these contentions, the Insurance
Company also took up the other defense that the
compensation claimed is highly exorbitant, imaginary, etc
and there were violations of the conditions of the policy
and as such, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay
the compensation.
7. On the basis of such contentions, appropriate
issues were framed by the Tribunal and the petitioner
Jayappa was examined as PW.1 and Exs.P1 to P56 were
marked in evidence. Ex.P56 is the MLC extracts of the
Hospital. The officer of respondent No.2 was examined as
RW.1 and respondent No.3 - Ravi, owner of the vehicle
NC: 2024:KHC:42254
was examined as RW.2. Exs.R1 and R2 were marked in
evidence.
8. After hearing the argument, the Tribunal came
to the conclusion that the vehicle was ridden by
respondent No.1 - Prashantha and therefore the Insurance
Company is liable to pay the compensation to the
petitioner.
9. Being aggrieved by the same, the Insurance
Company is before this Court in appeal.
10. The Trial Court Records have been secured.
11. Heard Sri. A.M.Venkatesh, learned counsel for
the appellant. It is submitted that the case sheet, which is
produced at Ex.P52 would show that the petitioner was
brought to the Hospital by Ravi, i.e., respondent No.3 and
it is in fact respondent No.3 - Ravi who was riding the
Motor cycle at the time of the accident.
NC: 2024:KHC:42254
12. The MLC register at Ex.P56 also discloses that
the petitioner was brought to the Hospital by the same
Ravi. He points out that in the cross-examination of the
PW.1 dated 30.11.2016, he has categorically admitted that
on 12.07.2015 he was a pillion rider on the Motor cycle
ridden by respondent No.3.
13. He also points out that PW.1 clearly admitted
that it was Ravi who brought him to the Hospital for
treatment. He also states that Ravi himself had informed
the accident to the police. Thereafter, it was suggested to
him that the accident was not due to the fault committed
by Ravi, but he had sustained the injury somewhere else,
which suggestion he has denied.
14. Thereafter PW.1 was recalled and in his further
examination in chief dated 03.04.2017, he improves his
version by saying that it was Prashantha who had called
him to come on the Bike and Prashantha was riding the
Motor cycle. He states that the petitioner had called
NC: 2024:KHC:42254
respondent No.3 and he came to the spot and then
brought him to the Hospital. It is submitted that the said
improvement is only to overcome the admission given by
him in the cross-examination on the earlier date.
15. Basing his contention on the cross-examination
of the PW.1 and the subsequent improvement made by
him, and also basing his argument on Exs.P56 and P52
where Ravi is shown to be the person who brought PW.1
to the Hospital. It is submitted that the said Ravi was not
having the Driving Licence and therefore in order to avoid
the liability, respondent No.3 - Ravi has brought him and
implicated respondent No.1 - Prashantha as rider of the
vehicle.
16. In this regard, he also points out that RW.3,
being the owner of the vehicle, though stating that he had
a valid Driving Licence, did not produce the same before
the Tribunal despite being examined as RW.2. Hence, it is
NC: 2024:KHC:42254
submitted that the Tribunal erred in fastening the liability
on the Insurance Company.
17. It is a settled principle that when there is a
dispute between the insured and the insurer concerning
the liability to be fastened upon the Insurance Company,
such question would not come in the way of granting the
compensation to the claimant. However, the interse
dispute between the insured and the insurer is governed
by the provisions laid in Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles
Act.
18. In the case on hand, respondent No.3, owner of
the vehicle contends that he was having a valid Driving
Licence and the admission of PW.1 shows that it was
respondent No.3 who was the rider of the Motor cycle at
the time of the accident. It was incumbent upon
respondent No.3 to produce his Driving Licence when he
categorically states in his cross-examination that he
possessed the Driving Licence as on the date of the
NC: 2024:KHC:42254
accident. Nothing prevented respondent No.3 from
producing the Driving Licence so that the liability could be
fastened upon the Insurance Company.
19. This is a fit case wherein the liability to pay the
compensation has to be fastened upon the Insurance
Company initially with liberty to the Insurance Company to
recover the same from respondent No.3 - Ravi, who is the
owner of the vehicle. The appellant - Insurance Company
shall be held liable to pay the compensation if respondent
No.3 - Ravi could satisfy the Insurance Company that he
possessed a valid Driving Licence as on the date of the
accident.
20. It is also pertinent to note that the judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co.
Ltd Vs. Swaran Singh And Others1 is also clear in this
regard. When respondent No.3 who is the owner of the
vehicle has appeared before the Tribunal and adduced
(2004) 3 SCC 297
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42254
evidence but failed to produce the Driving Licence, it is an
interse dispute between the appellant - Insurance
Company and the owner of the vehicle, who is the insurer.
Hence the appeal deserves to be allowed in part.
21. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the following
order is passed:
ORDER
i) Appeal is allowed-in-part.
ii) The appellant - Insurance Company is
directed to pay the compensation to the
petitioner - respondent No.1 herein as
ordered by the Tribunal.
iii) The appellant - Insurance Company would
be at liberty to recover the same from
respondent No.3 - Ravi, owner of the
vehicle.
iv) In case respondent No.3 produces the
Driving Licence, valid as on date of accident,
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42254
then the Insurance Company is barred from
recovering the compensation amount paid.
v) Rest of the orders passed by the Tribunal
regarding the deposit and the payment
remain unaltered.
vi) The amount in deposit before this Court is
ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal.
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
AM
