Karnataka High Court
The Branch Manager vs Kum Dhanyashri on 11 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:10299
MFA No. 2799 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 2800 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2799 OF 2015 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2800 OF 2015 (MV-I)
IN MFA No. 2799/2015
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
NO.1119/B, M.C. ROAD,
MANDYA - 571 401.
BY REGIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
5TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, HUDSON CIRCLE,
Digitally signed BANGALORE - 560 001,
by MEGHA BY ITS MANAGER.
MOHAN
Location: HIGH ...APPELLANT
COURT OF (BY SRI. O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. KUM DHANYASHRI,
MINOR, AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS,
D/O K.H. JAGADEESHA,
SINCE MINOR F/G
K.H. JAGADEESHA
R/AT KIRNGOORU VILLAGE,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:10299
MFA No. 2799 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 2800 of 2015
K SHETTAHALLI HOBLI,
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401.
2. NAYAJ KHAN,
MAJOR, S/O AJEEJ KHAN,
R/AT NO. 1819, ANANDA
RICE MILL ROAD, GANJAM,
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401.
3. SHANKAR
MAJOR, S/O ANANDAIAH,
R/AT DODDABESAGARA BEEDI,
KARIGATRA ROAD, GANJAM TOWN,
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK - 571 438.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. DEEPASHREE D, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. R. NAGENDRA NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
VIDE ORDER DATED 15.12.2017, NOTICE TO R2 AND R3 IS
HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 8.9.2014 PASSED IN MVC
NO.798/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, MACT, SRIRANGAPATNA, AWARDING A
COMPENSATION OF RS.10,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A
FROM THE DATE OF FILING THE PETITION TILL THE DATE OF
DEPOSIT OF THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT BEFORE THE
TRIBUNAL.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:10299
MFA No. 2799 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 2800 of 2015
IN MFA NO. 2800/2015
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
NO.1119/B, M.C. ROAD,
MANDYA - 571 401.
BY REGIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
5TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, HUDSON CIRCLE,
BANGALORE - 560 001,
BY ITS MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. DEEPA,
AGED 29 YEARS,
W/O K.H. JAGADEESHA,
R/AT KIRNGOORU VILLAGE,
K SHETTAHALLI HOBLI,
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401.
2. NAYAJ KHAN,
MAJOR, S/O AJEEJ KHAN,
R/AT NO.1819, ANANDA
RICE MILL ROAD, GANJAM,
SRIRANGAPATNMA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:10299
MFA No. 2799 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 2800 of 2015
3. SHANKAR
MAJOR, S/O ANANDAIAH,
R/AT DODDABESAGARA BEEDI,
KARIGATRA ROAD, GANJAM TOWN,
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK - 571 438.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. DEEPASHREE D, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. R. NAGENDRA NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
VIDE ORDER DATED 15.12.2017, NOTICE TO R2 AND
R3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 8.9.2014 PASSED IN
MVC NO.800/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, SRIRANGAPATNA, AWARDING
A COMPENSATION OF RS.7,500/- WITH INTEREST @ 6%
P.A FROM THE DATE OF FILING THE PETITION TILL THE
DATE OF DEPOSIT OF THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT
BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the award passed in M.V.C.No.798/2012
and M.V.C.No.800/2012 dated 08.09.2014 on the file of the
Additional Senior Civil Judge MACT, Srirangapatna, the
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:10299
MFA No. 2799 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 2800 of 2015
Insurance Company is before this Court questioning the liability
by filing MFA.No.2799/2015 and MFA.No.2800/2015
respectively. The Tribunal had disposed of the cases by way of
a common judgment. Hence, this Court is disposing of the
matters by way of common judgment.
2. When it comes to the liability, the Tribunal had
observed that a perusal of the evidence on record discloses that
RW.1 - Deputy General Manager of the second respondent -
Insurance Company in his evidence has not stated the fact that
the driver of the auto rickshaw was not having driving license
to drive the same at the material time of accident. Hence, the
second respondent has not let any evidence in support of the
defense taken by him. On the other hand, Ex.R1 - the
notarized copy of the driving license which was marked with
concerned discloses that one Krishna the driver of the offending
auto rickshaw is having valid and effective driving license to
drive the three wheeler auto rickshaw. The Tribunal observed
that the second respondent has not disputed the contents of
the Ex.R1. Hence. the contention of respondent No.2 that the
driver of the offending auto rickshaw had no driving license to
drive the same on the material time of accident cannot be
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:10299
MFA No. 2799 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 2800 of 2015
accepted and accordingly, held that the Insurance Company is
liable to pay the compensation.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance
Company submits that the Tribunal erred in holding that the
Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation when it is
specifically pleaded and proved that since the driver of the
insured transport auto has no valid and effective driving license
authorizing him to drive a transport vehicle and admittedly he
is having driving license for LMV (non-transport) which was
issued to him for the first time on 27.10.2009. Learned counsel
submits that now the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mukund
Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,1
case has directed the Government to make necessary
amendments that itself shows that the Hon'ble Apex Court has
not approved the law laid down in Mukund Dewangan's
case. As such, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the
compensation.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants had
relied on an order passed by this Court in MFA No.2798/2015
and MFA No.8205/2014 arising out of the very same accident,
1
AIR 2017 SCC 3668
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:10299
MFA No. 2799 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 2800 of 2015
wherein this Court has held that in light of the Mukund
Dewangan's case the Insurance Company is liable to pay
the compensation. In that view of the matter, this Court finds
no reasons to interfere with the well considered order passed
by the Tribunal. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following:
ORDER
i) M.F.A. No.2799/2015 and M.F.A.No.2800/2015 filed
by the Insurance company are dismissed.
ii) The amount in deposit shall be forthwith transferred
to the Tribunal.
iii) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court
Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of
the order passed by this Court forthwith without
any delay.
iv) No costs.
s
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
SD/-
(LALITHA KANNEGANTI)
JUDGE
KA
CT: BHK
