Allowed

Sri. Mohan Kumar v. Smt. Gowramma

Karnataka HC2 Nov 2023MFA/205/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the maintenance first appeal held before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, holding the Insurance Company liable to pay compensation based on the Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan, reversing the lower court's exoneration of the insurer.

What did the court decide?

Insurance Company to deposit amount within eight weeks; claimant entitled to withdraw entire amount; Trial Court records returned to Tribunal.

Sri. Mohan Kumar Vs Smt. Gowramma — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:38790 MFA No. 205 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 205 OF 2017 (MV-D)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. MOHAN KUMAR, S/O. CHANDRASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O. KUVEMPUNAGAR KOTE, CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101, OWNER OF TATA SUMO, BEARING REGN. NO.KA.19/C. 1257.

¶8

Digitally signed by JAI JYOTHI J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

SRI. DHARMARAJ, S/O. GAVIRANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O. SADARAHALLI VILLAGE, LAKYA HOBLI, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK - 577 102, DRIVER OF TATA SUMO BEARING REGN. NO.KA.19/C.1257.

¶10

…APPELLANTS

¶11

(BY SRI. MOHAN K. N, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SMT. GOWRAMMA, W/O. LATE HONNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶14

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:38790 MFA No. 205 of 2017

¶15

KUMAR H. H, S/O LATE HONNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,

¶16

MALLIYAPPA H.H, S/O LATE HONNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,

¶17

MAMATHA H.H, D/O. LATE HONNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

¶18

RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 4 ARE HOSPITAL 2ND CROSS, HIREMAGALUR, CHIKMAGALUR - 577 101.

¶19

THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., 1ST FLOOR, MADHU COMPLEX, MYSORE ROAD, CHANNARAYAPATNA, HASSAN-5, POLICY NO. 071483/31/14/01/00000663 VALID FROM 22.05.2014 TO 21.05.2015.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. MURTHY D.L, ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.09.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.285/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 4,72,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶23

¶24

NC: 2023:KHC:38790 MFA No. 205 of 2017

¶25

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

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

This matter came up 'for admission' today. Learned counsel for the appellant – owner of the vehicle submits that though the driver of the vehicle was having Light Motor Vehicle license to drive Light Motor Vehicles, but, he was driving a Light Motor Vehicle Transport and as there is no endorsement on the driving license, the Court below had held that the owner of the vehicle alone is liable to

¶28

pay the compensation and exonerated the Insurance Company. Learned counsel submits that this issue is covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of

¶29

Mukund Dewangan V/s Oriental Insurance company

¶30

Ltd.¹ and no Trial Court record is required and the appeal can be disposed of.

¶31

1 (2017) 14 SCC 663

¶32

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:38790 MFA No. 205 of 2017

¶33

Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance

¶34

Company also does not dispute the same and submits that the only issue that is involved in this case is about Light Motor Vehicle Transport and non-Transport.

¶35

The issue is no more res integra and the Hon’ble

¶36

Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan's case stated supra had held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation.

¶37

Accordingly, the appeal of the claimant is allowed

¶38

holding that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation.

¶39

i. The appellant - owner of the vehicle is at liberty to withdraw the amount in deposit.

¶40

ii. The respondent - Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit, the

¶41

¶42

NC: 2023:KHC:38790 MFA No. 205 of 2017

¶43

claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any security.

¶44

iii. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay.

¶45

iv. No costs.

¶46

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶47

SD/JUDGE

¶48

MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20 CT: BHK

Sri. Mohan Kumar v. Smt. Gowramma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Mohan Kumar v. Smt. Gowramma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Madhava Vs Sri Santhosh Devadiga

Rangamaanar Vs C.R. Prasanna Kumar

Guru Swamy Vs the Branch Manager

The Managing Director Vs Surendranath

Lakshman G Vs Susheela

Nishan Vs the Divisional Manager