Karnataka High Court
The Reliance General Insurance vs Shaikh Ahmed Ali And Anr on 6 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:877
MFA No. 200203 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200203 OF 2018 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
III FLOOR, ASIAN PLAZA, TIMMAPURI CIRCLE,
MAIN ROAD, KALABURAGI.
(NOW REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED
SIGNATORY, HUBLI).
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHAIKH AHMED ALI S/O ABDUL RASHEED MIYAN,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: MASON,
Digitally
signed by
R/O BULAND PARVAZ COLONY,
LUCYGRACE
LUCYGRACE Date:
2025.02.11
MILLAT NAGAR, KALABURAGI-585 101.
11:13:26 -
0800
2. RAJU S/O HANMANTHARAYA,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF AUTORICKSHAW
BEARING NO.KA-32/B-1207,
R/O VILLAGE MAHAGOAN,
TQ. & DIST. KALABURAGI-585 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. KRUPA SAGAR PATIL, ADV. FOR R1;
R2-SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:877
MFA No. 200203 of 2018
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE
APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 28.09.2017 IN MVC NO.476/2014 PASSED BY
THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, KALABURAGI.
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
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)
Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated
28.09.2017 passed in MVC No.476/2019 by the III
Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kalaburagi,
respondent No.2-Insurance Company is before this Court
in appeal.
2. The petitioner approached the Tribunal
contending that on 04.02.2014 at about 7.30 p.m., while
he was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing No.KA-32/
Y-5451, the driver of the auto rickshaw bearing
No.KA-32/B-1207 came from opposite side in a rash and
negligent manner and collided with the motorcycle, due to
NC: 2025:KHC-K:877
which, the petitioner fell down and sustained injuries and
he was shifted to Government Hospital, Gulbarga, where
he took treatment for about three days. It was contended
that he has suffered abrasions and other injuries in the
accident.
3. The petition was resisted by respondent No.2-
Insurance Company, contending that the compensation
claimed is highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable and
it has denied the age, income and occupation of the
petitioner. Interalia, it has contended that the driver of
the auto rickshaw was not having a valid driving licence at
the time of accident and that, there is contributory
negligence on the part of the petitioner, since the accident
occurred at the middle of the road.
4. On the basis of the rival contentions, the
Tribunal framed appropriate issues and petitioner was
examined as PW1 and Exs.P1 to P10 were marked. An
official of respondent No.2 was examined RW1 and Exs.R1
to R3 were marked.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:877
5. After hearing both the sides, the Tribunal
allowed the petition in part and awarded a compensation
of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner by fastening the liability
on respondent No.2-Insurance Company.
6. Being aggrieved by the said order, the
Insurance Company is before this Court, assailing the
liability fastened upon it.
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant-Insurance Company and the learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.1-petitioner.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-
Insurance Company contends that the Tribunal failed to
appreciate the fact that there was contributory negligence
on the part of the petitioner. The second prong of the
argument is that, the driving licence was not for transport
vehicles and therefore, the Tribunal could not have
fastened the liability upon the Insurance Company.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:877
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.1/petitioner would submit that the
appellant-Insurance Company has not rebutted the
negligence attributed to the driver of the auto rickshaw.
The charge sheet and thereafter pleading guilty by the
driver of the auto rickshaw would go against the argument
canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is
pointed out that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court
in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental
Insurance Company Limited1, the Insurance Company
cannot escape from the liability to pay the compensation
on the ground that the driver of the auto rickshaw was not
having a valid driving licence.
10. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for
respondent No.1, the judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of Mukund Dewangan supra has laid down that the
special type of the driving licence in respect of the
transport vehicle is not required, if the unladen weight of
AIR 2017 (SC) 3668
NC: 2025:KHC-K:877
the vehicle is below 7500 Kgs. Obviously, the vehicle
involved is the auto-rickshaw and therefore, the judgment
of the Apex Court squarely applies to the contentions
raised in this appeal. The Insurance Company cannot seek
absolvement of its liability on the ground that the driver
was not having a license to drive a transport vehicle. It is
pertinent to note that Ex.R3, the driving licence show that
the driver had valid licence to drive an LMV i.e., (NT) Auto
rickshaw.
11. The second contention is regarding the
contributory negligence. It is evident from the Tribunal
records that the police after investigation have come to
the conclusion that there was negligence on the part of the
driver of the auto-rickshaw. In the cross-examination of
the PW.1 or by the independent evidence of the RW.1,
there is nothing on record which would show that there
was any contributory negligence on the part of the
petitioner.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:877
12. It is pertinent to note that respondent No.2 -
Insurance Company, in order to rebut the charge-sheet,
could have at least relied upon the spot sketch. No such
spot sketch was also produced by the Insurance Company
to show that the accident occurred at the centre of the
road. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant that there was contributory
negligence on the part of the petitioner cannot be
accepted. Hence, the appeal fails on both these counts.
13. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
i. The appeal is dismissed.
ii) The amount in deposit is ordered to be
transmitted to the Tribunal.
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
LG,KJJ
