Karnataka High Court
The National Insurance vs Master Amit And Anr on 8 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:73
MFA No. 200744 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. JOSHI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200744/2018(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
OPP. MINI VIDHAN SOUDHA,
BILGUNDI COMPLEX
GULBARGA,
THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
BILGUNDI COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR,
OPP. MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, MAIN ROAD,
KALABURAGI,
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed (BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
by LUCYGRACE
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AND:
1. MASTER AMIT S/O SHARNU,
AGE: 8 YEARS, MINOR U/G OF NATURAL FATHER,
SHARANU S/O SHIVALINGAPPA,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR,
R/O JAMSHETTY NAGAR, NAGANALLI ROAD,
GULBARGA-585102.
2. SRI SUSHAN
S/O BAHUBALI CHINDE,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:73
MFA No. 200744 of 2018
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF MARUTI RITIZ CAR
BEARING REG.NO.KA-32/N-2778,
R/O H.NO.1-429/221-243,
PDA ENGINEERING COLLEGE ROAD,
GULBARGA-585102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SANJEEV PATIL, ADV., FOR R1
NOTICE TO R2 - SERVED, BUT UN-REPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE ORDER OF
THE TRIBUNAL AND CALL FOR THE LOWER COURT RECORDS
AND HEAR THE PARTIES AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
DATED 15.12.2017 AND AWARD DATED 15.12.2017 IN MVC
NO.483/2015 IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND CJM AND M.A.C.T., AT KALABURAGI.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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)
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and the learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.1.
2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award in
MVC No.483/2015 dated 15.12.2017 by the Principal
NC: 2025:KHC-K:73
Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kalaburagi, (for short
'Tribunal'), the Insurance Company is before this Court in
this appeal.
3. The fact that the vehicle insured by the
appellant, owned by respondent No.2 met with an
accident, wherein, respondent No.1 minor boy, aged about
5 years, had sustained injuries is not in dispute. The
appellant - Insurance Company is challenging the liability
on the ground that the Driver of the Car which caused the
accident had no valid driving license as on the date of the
accident.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-
Insurance Company would submit that even though there
is sufficient evidence placed on record before the Tribunal
that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having
valid driving license at the time of the accident, the
Tribunal has a fastened the liability upon the appellant -
Insurance Company, on the ground that the driving license
NC: 2025:KHC-K:73
which had expired could have been renewed, therefore,
the appellant is liable. It is also contended that the
compensation awarded is on higher side.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.1-claimant would submit an invalid driving
license would not affect the right to claim compensation by
respondent No.1. It is also submitted that in view of the
judgment of Apex Court in the case of PAPPU DEO
YADAV VERSUS NARESH KUMAR AND ORS.1, the
Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation with
liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.
6. A careful perusal of impugned judgment would
show that in Para 17 the Tribunal observes as below:
"Though in this case, the offending
vehicle driver had no the driving licence at the
time of accident, the RW.2 in cross
examination admits that the D.L. can be
renewed anywhere by other RTO. What it
AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 4424
NC: 2025:KHC-K:73
goes to show is that the D.L. can be renewed
by any competent RTO. Moreover, the
offending vehicle driver is not charge sheeted
for the offence punishable U/s. 3 r/w section
181 of the M.V. Act. So, it is held that the
respondent No.2 has failed to prove that at
the time of accident, the offending vehicle
driver had no a valid and effective DL.
Therefore, keeping in mind the principles laid
down in the above referred decisions, it is
held that the respondent No.2 has failed to
prove this issue. Therefore, I have answered
this issue in the NEGATIVE."
7. It is worth to note that as on the date of the
accident i.e., on 14.03.2015 the driver of the car was not
having valid driving license. Of course, such driving
license could have been renewed. When there was no
valid driving license as on date of the accident, obviously
there is violation of the terms and conditions of the policy.
It is evident that respondent No.1 - owner of the vehicle
had appeared before the Tribunal and therefore, when he
had appeared before the Tribunal, the Insurance Company
should have invoked the provisions of Section 170 of the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:73
M.V. Act, to take up all such defences as are available to
it. There is no such reference to an application filed under
Section 170 of the M.V. Act, in the impugned judgment.
Under these circumstances, it is evident that when the
invalid driving license was placed before the Tribunal in
the form of Ex.D3, the Tribunal could not have fastened
the liability fully upon the appellant herein. The interse
dispute about validity of the driving license between the
appellant and respondent No.2 herein should be left to be
decided among themselves. But there being a valid
insurance policy and the claimant being a third party
cannot be forced to seek compensation only from the
owner of the vehicle. In that view of the matter, the
propositions of law laid down by the Apex Court in PAPPU
DEO YADAV's case referred supra are squarely applicable
to the case on hand.
8. Insofar as the quantum of the compensation is
concerned, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel
for respondent No.1, there is no such ground pleaded in
NC: 2025:KHC-K:73
the appeal memo. The learned counsel for the appellant
would urge that despite there being no such ground in the
pleadings, the discretion may be exercised by this Court
and the ground that the compensation is on the higher
side may be looked into.
9. The Tribunal going through the injuries suffered
by a minor boy, aged about 5 years and on noticing the
law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Master
Mallikarjun vs. Divisional Manager, The National
Insurance Company Limited and Anr.2, - has granted
the compensation as below:
Towards pain and suffering `80,000/-
Towards loss of amenities and `25,000/-
enjoyment in life
Towards loss of future income `1,00,000/-
Towards attendant's charges, `1,500/-
food, nourishment and
conveyance expenses
(2014) 14 SCC 396
NC: 2025:KHC-K:73
Total `2,06,500/-
10. It is pertinent to note that the Tribunal has
awarded a sum of Rs.1,500/- under the head attendant
charges, food nourishment, etc. Obviously, it had not
considered the time and energy spent by the parents of
the petitioner in attending the petitioner while treatment.
Therefore, even though there is a slight variation by the
Tribunal in awarding the compensation as laid down by the
Apex Court in the case of Master Mallikarjun, it is not
necessary for this Court to venture into re-assessment of
the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal.
11. In view of the above observations, the
following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part.
ii) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
ordered to be paid by the appellant-Insurance
NC: 2025:KHC-K:73
Company to the petitioner at the first instance
with liberty to recover the same thereafter from
the owner of the Car, i.e., respondent No.2
herein.
iii) The rest of the terms and conditions regarding
deposit etc., ordered by the Tribunal remain
unaltered.
iv) The amount in deposit before this Court is
ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal.
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
SBS
CT: AK
