Appeal by insurance company to set aside compensation award on ground that driver's license was fake dismissed. Court held appellant failed to discharge burden of proof; paper publication was inadequate substitute for summoning owner.
Appeal dismissed; original judgment and award confirmed; deposit transmitted to tribunal.
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.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:12486 MFA No. 100446 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100446/2016 (MV)
BETWEEN:
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., BY ITS MANAGER, DR. PIKLE ROAD, 1ST FLOOR, STATE BANK OF INDIA BUILDING, KARWAR, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, MOTOR THIRD PARTY HUB OFFICE, SRINATH COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR, NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBBALLI-580 029, REP. BY ITS DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI R. R. MANE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SUJATA SUBHASH PAMMAR
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR S. BADAWADAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 – SERVICE OF NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT.)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.11.2015, PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T., KUMTA (ITINERARY SITTING AT ANKOLA), IN MVC NO.64/2012, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, ETC.,.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:12486 MFA No. 100446 of 2016
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the insurance company challenging the judgment and award dated 20.11.2015, passed by the tribunal, in MVC No.64/2012, questioning the liability fixed on the insurance company to pay compensation on the ground that the driving licence is fake one.
placed before the Court.
holding that the driver was holding valid and effective driving licence. It is argued by the learned counsel for appellant that the driving licence of the driver is fake one.
and more particularly the cross-examination of RW.1 official of appellant insurance company, it is emerged that the appellant insurance company has not made effort to prove the driving licence is fake one except saying orally in examination-in-chief. The appellant insurance company has office at Varanasi or around Varanasi in Uttar Pradesh and the appellant could have made more effort to get particulars from RTO, Varanasi, proving the driving licence is fake one, but the appellant has not made such effort, even though it is very much possible for the appellant insurance company. Therefore when the appellant has taken a contention that the driving licence is fake one, when it is burden on the insurance company to prove the same, but this burden is not discharged. Therefore there is no merit found in the grounds urged by the appellant insurance company.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:12486 MFA No. 100446 of 2016
Mumbai since address of the 2nd respondent owner of truck is shown at Mumbai, calling upon to produce the driving
licence. But this exercise of the appellant is a futile exercise. Just by putting paper publication calling upon the owner of truck to produce the driving licence is not feasible and practical one. The appellant could have put effort by summoning respondent No.2 owner but without doing that effort, publishing in newspaper calling upon to produce the driving licence is somewhat ridicule and absurd situation. Hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
ORDER
i) The appeal is dismissed.
ii) The judgment and award dated
20.11.2015, passed by the Addl. MACT, Kumta,
Itinerary sitting at Ankola, in MVC No.64/2012, stands confirmed.
iii) The amount in deposit shall be
transmitted to the tribunal.
iv) No order as to costs.
SD/JUDGE
MRK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 43 CT-ASC
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the assertion by the insurance company that the driver's license was fake was sufficiently proven.
Whether the burden of proof to disprove the authenticity of the license was discharged by the appellant.
Whether paper publication was a feasible substitute for summoning the vehicle owner to produce evidence.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. AND ANR.
GOVIND MANI GOWDA
SHRI MOHAMED MALANG HASSAN MIYA
HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
