Insurance company appealed against motor accident compensation award, contending driver lacked valid licence. Court found no evidence of unlicense or offence under MV Act s.3; liability rightly fastened on insurer.
The appeal was dismissed; amount in deposit to be transmitted to Tribunal for disbursement.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.23905 of 2013 (MV)
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER SHRIRAM GEN. INS. CO. LTD., E-8, EPIP, RIICO, SITAPUR JAIPUR, RAJASTAN 302022 R/BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
... APPELLANT
(By Sri. NAGARAJ C KOLLOORI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
... RESPONDENTS (By Sri. ANJANEYA M., ADVOCATE FOR R1)
2
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.4.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.456 OF 2010 ON THE FILE OF ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, RANEBENNUR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.1,47,200/WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% PA FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the insurance company challenging the judgment and award dated 26.04.2013 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranebennur, in MVC No.456 of 2010 with 6% interest.
3
injuries, the claimant filed claim petition in MVC No.456 of 2010 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranebennur.
marked one document.
4
that, the Tribunal has committed an error in fastening the liability on the insurance company. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.
for the claimant contended that even though the insurance company has taken such a contention, it has not proved the same. There is no material produced before the Tribunal to establish that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving licence. The Tribunal, considering the material available on record, fastened the liability on the insurance company. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.
5
Immediately, after the accident, the police have registered FIR as per Ex.P-1. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed as per Ex.P-3. It is very clear from the charge sheet that there is no offence committed by the driver of the offending vehicle under Section 3 of the MV Act and also there is no allegation regarding the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence. The insurance company has also not produced any documents to establish their claim and they have not examined the driver of the vehicle. Therefore, the Tribunal, on the basis of the material available on record, has rightly given a finding that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid driving licence and fastened the liability on the insurance company.
6
transmitted to the Tribunal concerned. The Tribunal is directed to disburse the amount to the claimant after due
verification.
Sd/JUDGE
Kmv
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal erred in fastening liability on the insurance company in the absence of evidence regarding invalid driving licence.
Whether the insurance company produced sufficient material to establish that the driver was unlicensed.
Whether the learned Tribunal's finding that the driver was holding a valid driving licence is correct based on record.
Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd.
Bootanayak
Renukamma
H.T. Narendra Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
