Partly allowed

Sri. Devegowda L.P. v. Jet Roadlines Pvt. Ltd.

Karnataka HC11 Jan 2022MFA/7677/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Karnataka disposed of two appeals regarding a motor accident compensation claim. The court held that legal representatives can prosecute the appeal, ruling against the precedent in Kannamma. Regarding the invalid driving licence, the insurer was held liable to pay but with liberty to recover from the vehicle's owner.

What did the court decide?

Compensation awarded at 6% p.a.; Insurer held liable with liberty to recover from vehicle owner in same proceedings.

Sri. Devegowda L.P. Vs Jet Roadlines Pvt. Ltd. — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

¶8

M.F.A. No.7677/2016(MV-I)

¶9

C/W

¶10

M.F.A. No.7076/2016(MV-I)

¶11

IN M.F.A.No.7677/2016:

¶12

BETWEEN:

¶13

SRI. DEVEGOWDA L.P. S/O PUTTASWAMY @ PUTTASWAMY GOWDA AGED 35 YEARS R/AT LINGAPURA VILLAGE GANDASI HOBLI, ARSIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT – 560 057 AND ALSO R/AT NO 09 1^ST MAIN, MALLASANDRA T. DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE – 560 057

¶14

SINCE DEAD, BY HIS LRs.,-

¶15

SMT. MANJULA H.N. W/O LATE DEVEGOWDA L.P AGED 39 YEARS

¶16

KUM. LOWKYASHREE L.D D/O LATE DEVEGOWDA L.P AGED 14 YEARS

¶17

¶18

MASTER VARUN L.D S/O LATE DEVEGOWDA L.P AGED 12 YEARS

¶19

ALL ARE R/AT LINGAPURA VILLAGE GANDASI HOBLI, ARSIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 103

¶20

AND ALSO R/AT NO.09, 1^ST MAIN MALLASANDRA, T. DASARAHALLI BENGALURU-560 057

¶21

AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER ORDER OF HON’BLE COURT DATED 11.08.2021

¶22

….APPELLANTS

¶23

(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶24

AND:

¶25

1 . JET ROADLINES PVT. LTD. DIRECTOR, PRASHANTH GAOGI CHHATRAL TALUK AND DISTRICT GANDHINAGAR GANDHINAGAR – 382 010 GUJARAT STATE, INDIA

¶26

2 . NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. REGIONAL OFFICE NO 114 SUBBARAM COMPLEX, M.G. ROAD BANGALORE – 560 001

¶27

3 . SUNDARAMA MOTORS BANGALORE REP. BY SRI. G. K. MAHADEVAIAH S/O LATE KUNNEGOWDA BEHIND GARAGESWAMI TEMPLE GARAGESHWARI POST T. NARASIPURA TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT- 571 110

¶28

¶29

4 . THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD REGIONAL OFFICE CORPORATION CIRCLE BANGALORE – 560 001

¶30

…. RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SRI. A.N. KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2, SRI. C.R. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DTD. 1.2.2021, R3-SERVED)

¶32

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 03.08.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.4217/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, (SCCH-16), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC.

¶33

***** IN M.F.A.No.7076/2016:

¶34

BETWEEN:

¶35

REGIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGISIONAL OFFICE SUBHARAM COMPLEX, 144, M.G. ROAD BENGALURU-560 001

¶36

….APPELLANT

¶37

(BY SRI. A.N. KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE)

¶38

AND:

¶39

DEVE GOWDA L.P. S/O PUTTASWAMY @ PUTTASWAMY GOWDA NOW AGED 35 YEARS R/AT LINGAPURA VILLAGE GANDASI HOBLI, ARSIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT AND ALSO R/AT NO. 09 1^ST MAIN, MALLASANDRA T. DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE – 560 057

¶40

¶41

SINCE R1 IS DEAD, BY HIS LRs.-

¶42

1(A). SMT. MANJULA H.N. W/O LATE DEVEGOWDA L.P AGED 39 YEARS

¶43

1(B). KUM. LOWKYASHREE L.D D/O LATE DEVEGOWDA L.P AGED 14 YEARS

¶44

1(C). MASTER VARUN L.D S/O LATE DEVEGOWDA L.P AGED 12 YEARS

¶45

ALL ARE R/AT LINGAPURA VILLAGE GANDASI HOBLI, ARSIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 103

¶46

AND ALSO R/AT NO.09, 1^ST MAIN MALLASANDRA, T. DASARAHALLI BENGALURU-560 057

¶47

AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER ORDER OF HON’BLE COURT DATE 19.08.2021

¶48

…. RESPONDENTS

¶49

(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A-C), R1(B & C) ARE MINORS REP. BY R1(A), VIDE ORDER DTD: 12.10.2018 NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶50

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 03.08.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.4217/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.2,91,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION AND ETC.

¶51

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶52

¶53

JUDGMENT

¶54

These two appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated August 3^rd , 2016 passed by the X-Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-16) ( ‘Tribunal’ for short) allowing the claim petition in part and awarding compensation of Rs.2,91,100/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim petition, till realization.

¶55

MFA No.7677/2016 is filed by the claimant and MFA No.7076/2016 is filed by the insurer-M/s. National Insurance Company Limited, seeking to allow the appeal and to set aside the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

¶56

For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred as per their status before the Tribunal.

¶57

Heard Shri Ravishankar, learned advocate for claimants and Shri A.N. Krishna Swamy, learned advocate for insurer-M/s. National Insurance Company Limited.

¶58

¶59

One Shri. Deve Gowda L.P., sustained grievous

¶60

injuries in a road traffic accident on May 27^th , 2009 while he was working as a Cleaner along with the Driver by name Shri.Jayaram, in the Lorry bearing No.KA.09.B.4343 for unloading the goods at Surath. When the said lorry was returning from Surath after unloading the goods, about at 3.30 a.m., on May 27^th , 2009 in Kandari Village near Karjan on Highway No.8, a lorry bearing No. GJ.18.U.7774 came from back side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against

¶61

the lorry, in which the said injured was traveling. On adjudication of the claim petition, Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,91,100/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition, till realisation.

¶62

While pending consideration of the injured-claimant’s appeal in MFA No.7677/2016, the appellant/claimant was reported to have been died and hence, his Legal Representatives viz., wife and minor children are brought on record vide Court Order dated 19.08.2021 and they are

¶63

¶64

arrayed as Appellants No.1 to 3 in MFA No.7677/2016 and as Respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(c) in MFA No.7076/2016.

¶65

Learned Advocate for the appellants - claimants

¶66

submitted that the original claimant passed away in June, 2021, during pendency of these appeals.

¶67

Sri. A.N. Krishna Swamy, learned Advocate for the

¶68

Insurer, has raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the appeal filed by the claimant, contending that the Legal Representatives of an injured claimant cannot prosecute the appeal, as held in Paragraph-12 of the decision in Kannamma Vs. Deputy General Manager [ILR 1990 KAR 4300]. Arguing in support of his appeal, Shri. A.N. Krishna Swamy submitted that, this Court has been consistently granting 6% interest in the cases of Motor Vehicle Accident Claims. He further submitted that, the Tribunal erred in directing the insurer to satisfy the award, because the Driving Licence held by the driver of the insured lorry was a fake one.

¶69

¶70

Admittedly, the claim petition was filed by the Injured-Claimant Shri. Deve Gowda. The accident has occurred on May 27^th , 2009. In the accident, the claimant sustained injuries and hence, he filed the instant claim petition. The Tribunal on consideration of the material on record, has awarded Rs.2,91,000/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition, till realization.

¶71

10, In view of the Law declared in Kannamma’s case (supra), Shri. A.N. Krishna Swamy is right in his submission that, the Legal Representative/s of the injured-claimant cannot prosecute the claim.

¶72

So far as the contentions urged by Shri. A.N. Krishna Swamy with regard to liability of the insurer are concerned, in view of the Law laid down in Pappu and Others Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba and Another [(2018) 3 SCC 208], in substance, what is canvassed before us is that, the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective Driving Licence as on the date of the accident in

¶73

¶74

question. This aspect is covered by the decision in Pappu’s case (supra).

¶75

12. Following the said decisions cited supra, we are inclined to hold that, the insurer is liable to indemnify the onus with liberty to recover the same from the insured, in the same proceedings.

¶76

Shri. A.N. Krishna Swamy is also right in his submission that, this Court has been consistently granting 6% interest in Motor Vehicles Accident Claims and Compensation cases. With regard to the licence is concerned, Shri. A.N. Krishnaswamy places reliance on Paragraph-11 in Pappu’s case (supra) and argued that the insurer is entitled to take a contention that the person, who was driving the vehicle did not possess a valid and effective Driving Licence, then the onus shall be upon the Insurance Company only after the owner of the offending vehicle pleads and proves that the driver of the offending vehicle was authorized to drive. He submitted that, in the case on hand, the owner of the vehicle-M/s. Jet Road Lines Private Limited, has remained ex-parte before the

¶77

¶78

Tribunal. Therefore, he submits that, in the event this Court were to hold that the insurer is liable to satisfy the award, the insurer may be granted liberty to recover that amount from the owner, in the same proceedings.

¶79

We have perused Ex.R6 and Ex.R8 and the photo

¶80

copy of the licence of the driver of the offending vehicle. The number mentioned in the licence is WB-012005538034 and the endorsement issued by the Licencing Authority as per Ex.R8 is also in respect of the very same Driving Licence number, wherein it is stated that, no such Driving Licence was issued by the Licence Issuing Authority. Therefore, the contention of the learned Advocate for the claimant that, ‘there was difference in number’, is factually un-founded.

¶81

We have carefully considered the authority in

¶82

Puppu’s case (supra) and hold that, Shri. A.N. Krishna Sway’s argument has some force. His argument was countered by the learned Advocate for the claimant stating that, the insurer had obtained an endorsement dated June 2^nd , 2016 at Ex.R8 and hence the Driving Licence bearing No.WB-012005538034

¶83

¶84

was not issued from the Licencing Authority. But, the Driving Licence, for which they had made an application dated June 6^th , 2016 as per Ex.-R6 was in respect of DL.No.WB012005538034 . Even if we accept the argument of the learned Advocate for the appellant-Insurer that the endorsement given by the Licencing Authority is not in respect of the Driving Licence belonging to the driver, the fact remains that it is the case of the insurer that the driver did not posses valid Driving Licence and the owner of the offending vehicle has not discharged his burden by producing the Driving Licence. Therefore, in our considered view, the insurer is entitled to recover the compensation amount from the owner, in the same proceedings.

¶85

In view of the above the following:

¶86

ORDER

¶87

(i) The claimant’s appeal in MFA No.7677/2016 is dismissed .

¶88

(ii) The Insurer’s appeal in MFA No.7076/2016 is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated August 3^rd , 2016 passed by the

¶89

¶90

Tribunal in MVC No.4217/2016 is modified by holding that, the claimants are entitled for a compensation of Rs.2,91,100/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of filing claim petition till the date of deposit.

¶91

(iii) The insurer is held liable to make the payment with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle, by executing decree in this proceedings.

¶92

The amount in deposit shall be transferred to the concerned Tribunal for disbursement, in accordance with law.

No costs.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

KGR*

Sri. Devegowda L.P. v. Jet Roadlines Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Devegowda L.P. v. Jet Roadlines Pvt. Ltd.

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

Kum. Nisarga v. Vs Smt. Jayamma

Sri K Kumarasamy Vs UOI

The Divisional Manager Vs Smt v Pratibha Devi B a

Regional Manager Vs Deve Gowda L P

Mr. Binoy John Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt Senkavitha