Dismissed

National Insurance Co.Ltd v. Sri. Venkatachalapathi

Karnataka HC8 Nov 2022MFA/4010/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed an appeal by National Insurance Co. Ltd. under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Upholding the Tribunal's award, the Court held that a tractor driving license allows the holder to drive a tractor with a trailer applied to for agricultural purposes, confirming the previous award of Rs. 3,67,305.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; judgment and award of Senior Civil Judge confirmed; compensation amount transmitted to Tribunal.

National Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Sri. Venkatachalapathi — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 08^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶6

M.F.A.No.4010/2018 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE NEAR DOOM LIGHT CIRCLE KOLAR - 563 101

¶9

THRUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE # 144, SUBHARAM COMPLEX MG.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001 REP. BY ITS ADM. OFFICER SMT.C.K.PARIMALA

¶10

… APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI ANUP SEETHARAM RAO., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SRI VENKATACHALAPATHI AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS S/O SRI VENKATESHAPPA RESIDING AT KAMANDAHALLI VILLAGE MAVALLI POST, BANGARPET TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 114

¶14

SRI B.N.VENKATASWAMY

¶15

MAJOR IN AGE RESIDENT OF BYRANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE HUDUKULA POST, BANGARPET TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 114

¶16

… RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI N.GOPALA KRISHNA, ADV. FOR R1; R2-SERVED)

¶18

¶19

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:20.03.2018 PASSED IN MVC No.528/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRINCIPAL JMFC, KGF, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.3,67,305 WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶20

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

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company

¶23

under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MV Act' for short), challenging the judgment and award passed in MVC No.528/2015 dated 20.03.2018 by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge & Prl. JMFC, KGF, questioning the liability.

¶24

2. The brief facts of the case are:

¶25

On 11.04.2015 at about 9.30 a.m., the claimant

¶26

was proceeding in a Hero Honda Splendor Motorcycle bearing No. KA-08/S-5450 as a pillion rider from Kolar to Kamandahalli. When he was proceeding near Aranya Anjaneyaswamy Temple near Nayakarahalli, the driver of

¶27

¶28

a Tractor and Trailer bearing No.KA-08/T-394 and KA08/T-395 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle in which the claimant was proceeding. Due to the said impact, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, the injured was shifted to R.L.Jalappa Hospital, wherein he took treatment as an inpatient. In this regard, a case was registered in the Bangarpet Police Station in Cr.No.56/2015 against the driver of the lorry.

¶29

Hence, a claim petition was filed by the claimant under Section 166 of the MV Act, seeking compensation on the ground that he was working as a Electrician and was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month, due to the injuries suffered in the accident he is unable to his regular work.

¶30

Sri. Anup Seetharam Rao, learned counsel appearing for appellant - insurance company has contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding the driving license to drive tractor, but the

¶31

¶32

vehicle in question met with an accident is a tractor attached with trailer. Hence, it has become a transport vehicle. As such, he has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. The Tribunal contrary to the policy conditions, fastened the liability on the insurance company. Hence, he prays for setting aside the judgment and award of the Tribunal by allowing the appeal.

¶33

Per contra, Sri. N.Gopala Krishna, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 has contended that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental

¶34

Insurance Co. Ltd reported in AIR 2017 SC 3668, license to drive tractor includes license to drive tractor attached with trailer. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly fastened liability on the insurance company. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶35

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the records.

¶36

¶37

Admittedly, as per Ex.R3, D.L. Extract, the

¶38

driver was holding driving license to drive the tractor (non-transport). The vehicle met with an accident is tractor attached with trailer. Hence, the vehicle has become a transport vehicle. This issue is squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan' s case (supra) . Therefore, in view of the above, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶39

Furthermore, the tractor is basically using for agricultural purpose and if the driver is holding driving license to drive tractor and then for carrying on the agricultural produce the tractor with trailer is required. Hence, the driver is holding driving license to drive tractor alone is competent to drive the tractor with trailer. Considering this aspect of the matter, the Tribunal has rightly held that the driver of the offending vehicle had effective driving license to drive the tractor and trailer also and proceeded to fasten liability on the

¶40

¶41

insurance company. Therefore, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is perfectly justified and legal one and hence there is no good ground made out to interfere

¶42

with the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal being devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

i. The appeal is dismissed.

¶45

ii. The judgment and award dated 20.03.2018, passed in MVC.No.528/2015, on the file of Senior Civil Judge & Prl. JMFC at KGF, is hereby confirmed.

¶46

iii. The amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal, forthwith.

Costs made easy.

JUDGE

Sd/-

MKM

National Insurance Co.Ltd v. Sri. Venkatachalapathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Co.Ltd v. Sri. Venkatachalapathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Savitha Vs Sri.K.v.Umashankar

Ravisha H S Vs a R Chethan

Thippeshappa Vs the Managing Director

Neelakantappa Puttappagowda Vs the Divisional Manager

Smt. Godaivalli Vs the Managing Director

The Divisional Controller Vs Smt. Akkamma