Allowed

Smt. Kavalamma v. P. John Shekar

Karnataka HC17 Nov 2023MFA/6881/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Miscellaneous First Appeal against an award exonerating the insurance company due to the driver's invalid license. The Karnataka High Court held the insurance company liable to pay compensation and recover it from the vehicle owner, thereby correcting the Tribunal's error.

What did the court decide?

Insurance company directed to pay compensation with interest and recover it from the vehicle owner; deposit required within eight weeks.

Smt. Kavalamma Vs P. John Shekar — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:41466 MFA No. 6881 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6881 OF 2019 (MV-D)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT.KAVALAMMA

¶9

W/O LATE RANGANATHAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT NO.65/1, SUGGATTA, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK (ADDL) BENGALURU -560 001

¶10

MR RAJESH S/O LATE RANGANATHAPPA AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS, R/AT NO.65/1, SUGGATTA BANGALORE NORTH TALUK (ADDL) BENGALURU -560 001

¶11

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

¶12

KUMARI RADHIKA D/O LATE RANGANATHAPPA AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS R/AT NO.65/1, SUGGATTA BANGALORE NORTH TALUK (ADDL) BENGALURU -560 001

¶13

MR HANUMANTHARAYAPPA S/O LATE OBAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS (DECEASED) R/A NO.65/1, SUGGATTA BANGALORE NORTH TALUK (ADDL) BENGALUJRU -560 001

¶14

MRS CHIKKA RANGAMMA W/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶15

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:41466 MFA No. 6881 of 2019

¶16

R/A NO.65/1, SUGGATTA, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK (ADDL) BENGALURU -560 001

¶17

…APPELLANTS

¶18

(BY KUM. AKSHAYA B.M, ADVOCATE )

¶19

AND:

¶20

P. JOHN SHEKAR S/O PONNUVEL, MAJOR NO.25, ANANDA VIHAR LAYOUT ABBIGERE DINNE, K G HALLI BENGALURU -560 002

¶21

REGIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD, NO.27/1, 2^ND FLOOR, THANGAVEHU BUILDING NEAR INDIAN BANK JALAHALLI CROSS BENGALURU -560 057

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. JANARDHANA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; NOTICE TO R-1 SERVED V.O.D: 09.02.2023)

¶24

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED.14.01.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.5032/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, XVIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU (SCCH-4), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶25

¶26

NC: 2023:KHC:41466 MFA No. 6881 of 2019

¶27

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

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

This appeal is filed by the claimants aggrieved by the award passed in MVC No.5032/2015, dated 14.01.2018, by the MACT, Bengaluru City.

¶30

The claim petition was filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.24,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in a road traffic accident. The court below had granted an amount of Rs.22,21,000/- as compensation. When it comes to 'Liability' the court below has come to the conclusion that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving license and hence, the owner of the offending vehicle is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants and exonerated the insurance company.

¶31

It was submitted before the court below that

¶32

even if it is a case of no license or valid driving license,

¶33

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC:41466 MFA No. 6881 of 2019

¶35

still the insurance company is liable to pay and recover the same, the Tribunal has observed that only the Hon'ble

¶36

Apex Court can apply the principle of pay and recover and the court below has no power to do so.

¶37

Learned counsel appearing for the claimants

¶38

submits that the court below without considering the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that only the owner is liable to pay the compensation.

¶39

Learned counsel appearing for the insurance

¶40

company submits that the court below has rightly held the owner of the vehicle is liable as there is no valid driving license.

¶41

Having heard the learned counsel on either

¶42

side, perused the material on record. The only ground on which the claimants are before this Court is that the court below had exonerated the insurance company from liability on the ground that there is no valid driving license. In the present case the deceased is a third party and even

¶43

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:41466 MFA No. 6881 of 2019

¶44

though there is no valid driving license to the driver of the offending vehicle still the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. It is a settled law and the Tribunal has erred in holding that it cannot apply the principle of pay and recovery and only the Hon'ble Apex Court can apply the principle. The claimants have not raised any other ground seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶45

Accordingly, the appeal of the claimants is allowed and the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimants and thereafter recover from the owner of the vehicle.

¶46

i) The compensation amount shall carry interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶47

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 claimants are

¶48

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:41466 MFA No. 6881 of 2019

¶49

entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any security.

¶50

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.

¶51

iv) No costs.

¶52

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶53

SD/JUDGE

¶54

¶55

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

Smt. Kavalamma v. P. John Shekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kavalamma v. P. John Shekar

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

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs T. John Rohit

Manoj. G. S. Vs Radhakrishna Bhat

Gangadhar G R Vs K L Lokesh

Mr. Shivakumar H Vs Girish

Sri Sridhar R Vs Smt Jnanamma

Sowbhagya Vs the Manager