Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Smt Gulabi Acharthi on 26 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:12930
MFA No. 4989 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4989 OF 2013 (MV)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, POST BOX NO.78,
JEWEL PLAZA, 1ST FLOOR, MARUTHI VEETHIKA,
UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT,
BY IT'S MANAGER
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. O.MAHESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT.GULABI ACHARTHI
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
W/O KRISHNA ACHARYA,
R/AT "PANCHAMA SRI NILAYA"
Digitally MANCHIKODI, KUNJIBETTU POST,
signed by UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT
SUVARNA T
2. ASHOK KUMAR HEGDE
Location:
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
HIGH
S/O SOORYANNA HEGDE,
COURT OF
R/AT KALYANI, KASABETTU
KARNATAKA
UDUPI TALUK-576 101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.VASANTHA LAKSHMI V., ADVOCTE FOR
SRI. S.D.N.PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI.H.JAYAKARA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:03.04.2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO.361/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST
TRACK COURT, UDUPI, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:12930
MFA No. 4989 of 2013
Rs.1,09,705/- WITH INTEREST @ 7% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL PAYMENT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the judgment and award passed in
M.V.C.No361/2012 dated 03.04.2013 by the Fast Track Court,
Udupi, the Insurance Company is before this court questioning
the liability.
2. The facts of the case are that on 26.01.2012 at about
11:30 hours when the claimant was walking on the side of the
road, suddenly a car came from Udupi side and the driver in a
rash and negligent manner came to the extreme wrong side of
the road and dashed against the petitioner as a result she
sustained grievous injuries. She was in hospital and took
treatment as inpatient and she has spent amounts towards the
treatment.
3. The trial court on the issue of liability has held that
according to the Insurance Company the driver of the car was
not having a valid driving license at the time of the accident.
NC: 2025:KHC:12930
RW-1 has stated that the rider of the car was not holding DL to
drive light motor vehicle. RW-1 has also stated that the said
driver had D.L only in respect of two wheeler. In support of her
contention Ex.R-1 is produced. RW-2 who is Asst. RTO Udupi
has stated that the driver of the car was not holding DL to drive
light Motor Vehicle. But in the cross-examination he has also
stated that they were not aware of the issuance of D.L. relating
to light motor vehicle to the driver of the car by the other RTO
office. RW-3 i.e., respondent No.1 has stated that RTO
Shimoga has issued DL to him. He has produced extract of DL
which is marked as Ex.R-3. Ex.R-3 goes to show that RW-3 is
authorized to drive light motor vehicle (N/T) with effect from
18.05.2007. There is nothing on record which goes to show
that DL issued by the RTO, Shimoga has been revoked or
suspended. Hence, the trial court has held that the driving
license is valid when the accident has taken place and held that
the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance
Company had drawn the attention of the court to Ex.R-3.
Ex.R-3 is a driving license issued by the RTO Udupi. Basing on
Ex.R-3 he submits that the said Ex.R-3 did not bear the seal of
NC: 2025:KHC:12930
the RTO Udupi. Further, it is submitted that both the owner and
the driver are served and they failed to come forward and place
before the court the license, which clearly shows that as on the
date of the accident, the driver of the car was not having a
valid driving license. It is submitted that the court without
appreciating the same and contrary to the contents of RW-3
has held that there is a valid driving license which is factually
incorrect.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant
submits that the trial Court had rightly considered the evidence
and rightly granted the compensation and held that the
Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation.
6. Having heard the counsels on either side, perused the
material on record. It is the case of the Insurance Company
that the driver is not having a valid driving license to drive the
vehicle basing on Ex.R-3. The trial court has given a finding
that the driver is having light motor vehicle license with effect
from 18.05.2017, there is nothing on record which goes to
show that DL issued by the RTO Shimoga has been revoked or
suspended. This court has perused Ex.R-3. Ex.R-3 mentions
NC: 2025:KHC:12930
about the license in respect of the heavy motor vehicle between
31.01.2012 to 30.01.2015 and it shows that earlier he was
having a driving license between 2002 to 2007. The findings of
the Trial Court is that there is no material to show whether the
D.L issued by RTO, Udupi has been revoked or suspended, the
said finding is without any basis. Further when there is an
opportunity given to the owner and to the driver and when they
have failed to place the driving license before the court, in the
considered opinion of this court in the light of Ex.R-3., it has to
be held that the driver is not having a valid driving license as
on the date of accident and the principle of pay and recover will
apply.
i. Accordingly, appeal of the insurance company
is partly allowed. The Insurance Company
shall pay the compensation and recover the
same from the owner of the vehicle.
ii. The amount in deposit by the Insurance
Company shall be forthwith transmitted to the
Tribunal.
iii. The Registry is directed to return the Trial Court
Record to the Tribunal along with the certified
NC: 2025:KHC:12930
copy of the order passed by this court forthwith
without any delay.
iv. No Costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
SD/-
(LALITHA KANNEGANTI)
JUDGE
TS
