Allowed

Sri v. Krishne Gowda v Sri R Ravi Kumar

Karnataka HC4 Dec 2023MFA/6612/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the appeal filed by a vehicle owner against an award of Rs. 56,800. The court held the insurance company liable to pay compensation as the driver possessed a valid license, rejecting the insurer's link between the owner's procedural lapse and the original liability to pay interest.

What did the court decide?

The insurance company is held liable to pay the compensation amount with accrued interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the petition.

Sri v Krishne Gowda Vs Sri R Ravi Kumar — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:43905 MFA No. 6612 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6612 OF 2012

¶7

(MV-I)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. V KRISHNE GOWDA S/O VARADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 825/1, NEAR STADIUM, WATER TANK ROAD, KEELUKOTE KOLAR - 563 101

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. HARISHA S., ADVOCATE FOR;

¶12

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

¶13

SRI. N S SHESHADRI.,ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SRI. R. RAVI KUMAR S/O RADHA KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS RESIDIFNG AT NO. 1319 MARUTHI NILAYA, KATARIPALYA KOLAR TOWN-563010

¶16

THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD D O S UNITY BUILDING ANNEX MISSION ROAD BENGALURU-560027

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:43905 MFA No. 6612 of 2012

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. L SREEKANTA RAO.,ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. JAGADISH G. KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1)

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED16.9.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.6083/2009 ON THE FILE OF MEMBER, MACT, 4TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.56,800/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS PAYMENT.

¶22

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

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

This is an appeal filed by the owner of the vehicle aggrieved by the award passed in MVC.No.6083/2009 dated 16.09.2011 on the file of the IV Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and MACT, Bangalore.

¶25

The claim petition was filed by the claimant

¶26

seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. The

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:43905 MFA No. 6612 of 2012

¶28

owner of the vehicle, appellant herein who is Respondent No.1 before the court below was placed exparte. The court below while fixing the liability had observed that RW1 and 2 by producing the 'B' register extract pertaining to the rider of the offending vehicle Ex.R-2 and R-6 that the

¶29

rider had license to drive LMV Non-Transport car. The offending vehicle is motor cycle with gear and to ride the said vehicle, one must have a separate license. As it being a different class of vehicle, a person with said license is not expected to ride the motor cycle and held that the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation and granted compensation of an amount of Rs.56,800/-.

¶30

3. Learned counsel for the owner of the vehicle

¶31

submits that in fact they have given all the documents to the insurance company and also to the Investigating Officer which is evident from the charge sheet. He submits that the insurance company having had all the documents has chosen to submit only part of it and the

¶32

¶33

NC: 2023:KHC:43905 MFA No. 6612 of 2012

¶34

part of it is not submitted. He submits that during the pendency of the appeal, by way of additional evidence, they have already produced the driving license which shows that he is having a driving license to drive a vehicle with gear from 07.09.1991 to 20.04.2010. Accident had taken place on 28.06.2009 and the rider of the offending vehicle is having effective driving license and the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation.

¶35

On the other hand, learned counsel for the

¶36

insurance company submits that earlier the matter underwent adjournment for filing objections and to obtain instructions in this regard. Learned counsel for the insurance company do not dispute the fact that the driver is having license to drive a motor cycle with gear. He submits that as owner of the vehicle contested the matter before the court below and produced these documents.

¶37

Now because of the lapses on the part of the owner of the vehicle, the insurance company has to pay the interest for the these many years. He submits that in fact it is the

¶38

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:43905 MFA No. 6612 of 2012

¶39

owner of the vehicle who has to pay the interest for these years and the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation.

¶40

Learned counsel for the claimant submits that

¶41

because of this dispute and issue between the owner of the vehicle and insurer, the claimant being a third party to the insurance policy is not able to get any amount, when the accident had taken in the year 2009.

¶42

Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the entire material on record. The submission of the learned counsel for the insurance company that the owner of the vehicle that they have given all the documents to the insurance company and they have not produced before the court, this court is not able to appreciate such a contention. When he had received the summons, the owner of the vehicle ought to have represented before the court. It appears that he had

¶43

produced the driving license and other documents before the police. Now by way of additional evidence, the driving

¶44

¶45

NC: 2023:KHC:43905 MFA No. 6612 of 2012

¶46

license has been produced before this court which is undisputed. As per the same, driver is having license to drive a vehicle with gear which is valid from 07.09.1991 till 20.04.2010 which makes it crystal clear that as on the date of the accident the rider of the vehicle is having a valid driving license. In such a case, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation.

¶47

Coming to the contention of the learned counsel

¶48

for the insurance company, because of the lapses on the part of owner of the vehicle, they cannot be made to pay the interest and from 04.12.2009 till today and the owner of the vehicle has to pay the interest. This court finds no force in the submission of the learned counsel for the reason, the insurance company has filed Ex.R-2 and Ex.R6 before the court. As per Ex.R-6, he was having NonTransport license from 1996 to 2011. When they got

¶49

these documents from RTO office with regard to four wheeler as well it has to be presumed that the other documents with regard to his driving license is very much

¶50

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:43905 MFA No. 6612 of 2012

¶51

available with the insurance company and for the best reasons known to them, they have not produced the same. In such a scenario, this court finds no reasons to direct the owner of the vehicle to pay the interest for the said period. It is undisputed that the driver of the vehicle is having a license to drive the vehicle with gear, the Insurance company is liable to pay the compensation.

¶52

Accordingly, appeal of the owner of vehicle is

¶53

Allowed and the Insurance Company is held liable to pay the compensation.

¶54

(a) The compensation amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition, till the date of realization.

¶55

(b) Respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest before the tribunal within a period of 8 (Eight) weeks.

¶56

¶57

NC: 2023:KHC:43905 MFA No. 6612 of 2012

¶58

¶59

(d) The Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Record to the Tribunal along with the certified copy of the order passed by this court forthwith without any delay.

¶60

(e) No Costs.

¶61

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

closed.

Sd/JUDGE

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 68

Sri v. Krishne Gowda v Sri R Ravi Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri v. Krishne Gowda v Sri R Ravi Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Shivaraj @ Rajesh Vs Venkataswamy Reddy

The Divisional Manager Vs Avinash Shetty

Basavarajappa H M Vs Jayanna

Mr Vemanarayana Vs the Managing Director

Vijayakumar B.R Vs B.G. Paramesh

Ananda. K Vs Narayana Murthy