Allowed

Ravi S/O Kenchappa Wadaratti v. Virupax S/O Hanumant Gudanaikar

Karnataka HC14 Oct 2019MFA/20352/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An appeal challenging a motor accident claim award where liability was wrongly fixed on the vehicle owner. The High Court allowed the appeal, modifying the award to fasten entire liability on the insurance company based on the driver's valid licence validity, in line with Supreme Court precedent.

What did the court decide?

Liability fastened on Respondent No.2-insurance company; directed to deposit compensation of Rs.1,09,175/- with 6% interest within six weeks.

Ravi S/O Kenchappa Wadaratti Vs Virupax S/O Hanumant Gudanaikar — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

¶6

M.F.A.NO.20352/2013 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

RAVI S/O KENCHAPPA WADARATTI, AGE ABOUT : 32, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O 1280, KALAMESHWAR NAGAR, KAGARALI, BELGAUM, DIST: BELGAUM. (OWNER OF TATA SUMO REG.NO.KA.35/MB.1116)

¶9

… APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

VIRUPAX S/O HANUMANT GUDANAIKAR, AGE : 20 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O GORAVANAKOLLA, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶13

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 2^ND FLOOR, MADIWAL ARCADE, CLUB ROAD, BELGAUM-590001.

¶14

… RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI GURURAJ R.TURAMARI, ADVOCATE FOR R1) (BY SRI S.S.KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶16

¶17

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.02.2012 PASSED IN MVC.NO.1872/2010, ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SAUNDATTI.

¶18

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

This appeal is filed by the owner of the offending vehicle challenging the judgment and award dated 24.02.2012 passed in MVC.No.1872/2010 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Saundatti (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,09,175/- to the claimant with interest at the rate of 6% and fastened the liability on the owner of the vehicle.

¶21

¶22

Brief facts of the case are that, on 07.02.2010 at about 11.30 p.m., the claimant while returning to his village Goravanakolla on his bicycle at Saundatti-Munavalli road, a Tata Sumo bearing registration No.KA.25/MB-1116 came from opposite directions with high speed and dashed to the bicycle of the petitioner. Due to the said accident, petitioner fell down from his bicycle and suffered grievous injuries to his head and right knee. He has taken to the hospital at Saundatti and thereafter wards he was admitted in the S.D.M Hospital, Dharwad. After recovering from the injuries, the claimant has filed claim petition in MVC.No.1872/2010.

¶23

To establish his case, the petitioner has examined himself as PW.1 and examined three witnesses as PWs.2 to 4 and got marked 106 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.106. On the other hand, insurance company neither

¶24

¶25

examined any witness nor marked any

¶26

documents. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had awarded compensation of Rs.1,09,175/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.m. and fastened the liability to pay the compensation on owner of the offending vehicle on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding LMV driving licence, but he was driving the Tata Sumo which is a private vehicle.

¶27

Sri Jagadish Patil, learned counsel appearing for the appellant owner of the offending vehicle has contended that the Tribunal is in error in fastening the liability on the owner of the vehicle on the ground that he was having only LMV licence on the date of accident but he driving transport heavy vehicle. In support of his contention, he has relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case

¶28

¶29

of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental

¶30

Insurance Company Limited reported in AIR 2017 Supreme Court 3668 . He further contends that, he drives the Tata Sumo it is a private vehicle but the Tribunal erred in holding that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation and hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.

¶31

Per contra, Sri S.S.Koliwad, learned counsel appearing for insurance company has submitted that, the driver of the offending vehicle was having a LMV and HGV driving licence but he was driving Tata Sumo. The Tribunal on consideration of the materials available on record has rightly fastened the liability on the owner of the vehicle.

¶32

Heard learned counsel for the parties

¶33

and perused materials available on records.

¶34

¶35

It is not in dispute that the claimant

¶36

has suffered injuries caused in the accident occurred on 07.02.2010 due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Tata Sumo bearing registration No.KA.25/MB.1116. The Tribunal on the basis of oral and documentary evidence on record has awarded compensation of Rs.1,09,175/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.m., but wrongly fastened the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle.

¶37

The appellant has filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for production of the History Sheet for the Drivers issued by the RTO, Belagavi. It is very clear that the driver of the offending vehicle was having valid driving licence to drive the transport vehicles also. Even otherwise, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan stated supra has held that, if the

¶38

¶39

driver is holding licence to drive the LMV vehicles, he can also drive the transport vehicles of such class without endorsement to that effect. Therefore, in the case on hand, the finding of the Tribunal that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation is unsustainable. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the appeal filed by the owner of the offending vehicle is allowed.

¶40

The judgment and award dated 24.02.2012 passed in MVC.No.1872/2010 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge & Additional M.A.C.T, Saundatti is modified by fastening the entire liability on respondent No.2-insurance company.

¶41

Respondent No.2-insurance company is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount of Rs.1,09,175/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.m. from the date of petition till its

¶42

¶43

realization within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶44