Dismissed

The Divisional Manager, v. Smt. Neelabai W/O Nagappa @ Nagesh Lamani

Karnataka HC4 Dec 2023MFA/25086/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed an appeal by an insurance company challenging a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award. The court held the insurer was liable as the appellant's insured tractor was the proximate cause, and the driver held a valid licence for the vehicle class.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed and the judgment of the Tribunal dated 10.08.2011 is confirmed.

The Divisional Manager, Vs Smt. Neelabai W/O Nagappa @ Nagesh… — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:14143 MFA No. 25086 of 2011

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 04^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.25086/2011 (MV)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., RAMDEV GALLI, BELAGAVI – 590 002, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, CELL, SUJATA COMPLEX, P.B.ROAD, HUBBALLI - 580 029, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI RAVINDRA R. MANE, ADVOCATE.)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by BHARATHI H M

¶14

SMT. NEELABAI W/O. NAGAPPA @ NAGESH LAMANI, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: KENDUR L.T., TQ: BADAMI, NOW RESIDING AT MUCHAKHANDI L.T., TQ AND DIST: BAGALKOTE.

¶15

KUMAR VEERESH S/O. NAGAPPA @ NAGESH LAMANI, AGE: 8 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT.

¶16

KUMAR KRISHNAPPA S/O NAGAPPA @ NAGESH LAMANI, AGE: 6 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT.

¶17

KUMARI ASHA @ AISHWARYA D/O NAGAPPA @ NAGESH LAMAN, AGE: 3 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC-D:14143 MFA No. 25086 of 2011

¶20

(SINCE RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4 ARE MINORS, THEY ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER ANDNATURAL GUARDIAN RESPONDENT NO.1.)

¶21

SMT. RUKMAVVA W/O. RAMAPPA LAMANI, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: KENDUR L.T., TQ: BADAMI, NOW RESIDING AT MUCHAKHANDI L.T., TQ AND DIST: BAGALKOTE.

¶22

VITHALAGOUDA S/O. GOVINDAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: TRACTOR OWNER, R/O:KALASSA, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOTE.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI D.B.PATTAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI ANAND R. KOLLI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R5; R2 TO R4 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R1; SRI S.M.NADAF, ADVOCATE FOR R6)

¶25

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.08.2011 PASSED BY THE COURT OF MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.III, BAGALKOTE, IN MVC NO.712/2008 AND ETC.,

¶26

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

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

This appeal is filed by the insurance company

¶29

challenging the judgment and award dated 10.08.2011, in

¶30

MVC No.712/2008, passed by the Member, MACT-III,

¶31

¶32

NC: 2023:KHC-D:14143 MFA No. 25086 of 2011

¶33

Bagalkote, calling in question the liability fixed on the appellant insurance company.

¶34

The factum of accident, death of deceased are not in dispute in this case. The only disputed fact is whether the insurance company is liable to pay compensation or not.

¶35

Heard the arguments and perused the material placed before the Court.

¶36

In the present case the deceased was a pedestrian, hit by tractor and trailer and the deceased died. It is the ground urged by the appellant insurance company and argued by the learned counsel that tractor trailer constitute a special class of vehicle. Therefore mere holding driving licence to drive light motor vehicle is not sufficient. Therefore argued that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation as there is violation of condition of insurance policy.

¶37

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14143 MFA No. 25086 of 2011

¶38

Admittedly the driver was holding driving

¶39

licence to drive the light motor vehicle (non transport). The person who was holding the driving licence to drive the light motor vehicle (non transport) can also drive the light motor vehicle (transport). Admittedly the tractor trailer is a light motor vehicle coming within the definition of section 2(21) of the M.V.Act. Therefore, there is no violation of condition of policy so as to exonerate the insurance company.

¶40

Another ground canvassed by the learned

¶41

counsel for appellant that the tractor is insured and the trailer is not insured and the deceased hit by tractor from backside. Therefore, when the tractor is insured, and the tractor engine hit the deceased, therefore the insurance company shall indemnify the owner of the tractor and to pay compensation. The trailer cannot move independently without tractor engine. Hence the tribunal is correct in fastening the liability on the appellant insurance company. Hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶42

NC: 2023:KHC-D:14143 MFA No. 25086 of 2011

¶43

¶44

In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

i) The appeal is dismissed.

¶47

ii) The judgment and award dated 10.08.2011, in MVC No.712/2008, passed by the Member, MACT-III, Bagalkote, stands confirmed.

¶48

iii) The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the tribunal.

¶49

iv) No order as to costs.

¶50

SD/JUDGE

¶51

MRK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 86 CT-ASC

The Divisional Manager, v. Smt. Neelabai W/O Nagappa @ Nagesh Lamani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Manager, v. Smt. Neelabai W/O Nagappa @ Nagesh Lamani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Adhipathi S/O Narasappa Vs the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Smt. Doddawwa W/O Narayan Pujeri Vs Shri Ramappa S/O Bhimappa Keri

Smt. Nirmala W/O. Sadanand Jambagi, Vs Appanna S/O. Ganapatrao Jambagi

Smt. Gouravva W/O Shedeyappa Talwar Vs Sri. Madivalappa S/O Hanmantapap Dodamani Alis Talwar

Smt M.T. Basavarajeshwari W/O M.T.Sreenivas Vs R Siddanna Gouda S/O R.Basava Reddy

Ramanna Yallappa Tatti Vs Kallappa Gurubasu Mali