Dismissed

General Manager v. Prakash N

Karnataka HC19 Jun 2023MFA/8051/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, in a miscellaneous first appeal filed by an insurance company, considered whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred in holding the insurer liable despite alleged lack of driver's license. The apex cited precedents but found no infirmities in the Tribunal's evidence appreciation.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed. Amount in deposit to be transmitted to jurisdictional Court for disbursement to claimants.

General Manager Vs Prakash N — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:21146 MFA No. 8051 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8051 OF 2013 (MV-D)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

GENERAL MANAGER M/S ICICI LOMBARD GIC LTD. #89, III FLOOR, PVR COMPLEX, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, MADIVALA, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE-68.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by HARSHITHA B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

PRAKASH N

¶15

S/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY @ NAGARAJ NOW AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT NO.36, 4TH CROSS, OLD KEB ROAD, MUNINANJAPPA GARDEN, R.T. NAGAR, BANGALORE-32.

¶16

KAVERI

¶17

W/O GOPI NOW AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT NO.217, KOGILU LAYOUT, YELAHANKA,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:21146 MFA No. 8051 of 2013

¶20

BANGALORE NORTH-560064.

¶21

SUMITHRA

¶22

D/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY @ NAGARAJ NOW AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS RA/T NO.392, YELAHANKA UPANAGARA, A SECTOR, 12TH A MAIN ROAD, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE NORTH-560064.

¶23

SIDDAGANGAMMA W/O KRISHNARAJU NO.245/4, M.S. BUILDING, YELAHANKA UPANAGAR, BANGALORE-64

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. SURESH M LATUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3 (APPEARED THROUGH VC); SRI G. UDYAYKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶26

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:20.07.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.4187/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, & XXII ACMM, MACT, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.3,76,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT IN TRIBUNAL.

¶27

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS

¶28

DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

¶30

NC: 2023:KHC:21146 MFA No. 8051 of 2013

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

Appellant-insurance company has preferred this

¶33

appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 20.07.2013 passed by the MACT, XXIV Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bangalore, in MVC No.4187/2012.

¶34

Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company has submitted his arguments that the Tribunal

¶35

has failed to appreciate the evidence adduced by the appellant with regard to non possession of driving licence by the driver of the auto rickshaw. Tribunal has failed to notice that jurisdictional police after thorough investigation have filed a chare sheet under Section 3(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'MV Act') holding that the driver of the auto rickshaw did not possess valid driving licence. The Tribunal committed an error in ignoring the evidence of the documents available on record and same amounts in miscarriage of justice. Tribunal has committed an error in not noticing the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

¶36

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:21146 MFA No. 8051 of 2013

¶37

v. SWARN SINGH reported in 2004 ACJ Page 1 (SC), RAMBABU TIWARI v. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., reported in 2008 ACJ 2654, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. VIDYADHARA MEHARIWALA reported in 2008 ACJ 2860 and MALLA PRAKASH RAO v. MALLAJANAKI reported in 2004 (3) SCC 343 wherein the Apex Court clearly held that if the driver did not possess valid and effective driving licence, the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation. On all these grounds sought for allowing this appeal.

¶38

As against this, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants has submitted his arguments that the Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence in accordance with law and facts. That there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Further it is submitted that the respondents have preferred an appeal in MFA

¶39

¶40

NC: 2023:KHC:21146 MFA No. 8051 of 2013

¶41

No.10636/2013 for enhancement of compensation, which was dismissed by this Court on 17.12.2015.

¶42

Having heard the arguments on both sides, the

¶43

following points would arise for my consideration:

¶44

(1) Whether the appellant-insurance company has made out grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal as to the liability of the insurance company?

¶45

(2) What order/award?

¶46

My answer to the above points are as follows:

¶47

(1) Negative

¶48

(2) As per final order

¶49

I have gone through the impugned judgment

¶50

and award. A perusal of impugned judgment it is clear

¶51

that the insurance company has taken defence that the driver of the goods auto was not having valid licence at the time of accident.

¶52

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:21146 MFA No. 8051 of 2013

¶53

The Tribunal has observed that in Ex.P-2 -

¶54

charge sheet it has observed that police have not inserted offences punishable under Section 3(1) r/w 181 of MV Act, but in Ex.R-2 it is shown that the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 279 and 304-A of IPC and Section 181 of MV Act. The IO examined before the Court as RW2 has deposed in his evidence that he is the IO in this crime number, but he has denied that Ex.P-4 - charge sheet does not reveal as to the offence punishable under Section 3(1) r/w 181 of MV Act. In Ex.P-4 he has

¶55

not explained even during his examination before the Court on oath as to why he has not inserted Section 3(1) r/w 181 of the MV Act. Ex.P-4 is contrary to the contents of Ex.R-2 as to the alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 3(1) r/w 181 of the MV Act. The IO who is examined before the Court has not deposed in his evidence during the course of investigation, whether he has issued notice to the owner of the vehicle as required under Section 133 of the MV Act or not. Considering all these aspects and also relying on the

¶56

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:21146 MFA No. 8051 of 2013

¶57

judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court, the Tribunal has held that insurance company has not discharged the burden to prove that the driver was not having valid driving licence at the time of accident. He has relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of 1999 ACJ 171 ( RUKMANI & ORS. v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. ), ILR 2000 KAR 2829 ( UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. N.SRINIVASA & ANOTHER), 2004 ACJ 67 7 (ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., v. RAMESH B. JAIN AND OTHERS), 2005 ACJ 89 ( RANGAPPA & ORS. v. B.L.MAHALINGAPPA & ORS .), and 2005 ACJ 92 ( SANDHYA DEBEY & ORS. v. SHYAM KUMAR & ORS. ).

¶58

On re-appreciation of evidence on record also, I

¶59

do not find any legal infirmities in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded the compensation in accordance with law and facts. Accordingly, that there are no grounds to interfere

¶60

¶61

NC: 2023:KHC:21146 MFA No. 8051 of 2013

¶62

with the impugned judgment and award as to the insurance company.

¶63

RE. POINT NO.2:

¶64

For the aforestated reasons and discussion, I proceed to pass the following:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

(1) Appeal is dismissed .

¶67

(2) Amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Court to disburse the same to the claimants in terms of the award of the Tribunal.

¶68

(3) Registry is directed to transmit the records to the jurisdictional court along with the copy of this judgment.

¶69

Sd/JUDGE

¶70

DR List No.: 38 Sl No.: 11

General Manager v. Prakash N

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

General Manager v. Prakash N

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Divisional Manager Vs Anu @ Linga Shetty

Sri. Om Prakash Takur Vs the Reliance Gen. Ins Co. Ltd.

Santosh K R S/O Karabasappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri H M Karun Vs M/S SBI General Insurance

Sri Puttaswamy Vs Sri Umesh

G Srinivas S/O Rangaiah Vs H.D.F.C Egro General Insurance Co. Ltd.