Partly allowed

The Divisional Manager v. Smt. Girijavva W/O Yashvanthappa Hakkalli

Karnataka HC14 Oct 2024MFA/100164/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the insurer's appeal in part, upholding the liability to pay compensation to claimants despite the driver's lack of a valid licence. The insurer must deposit the amount but retains liberty to recover it from the vehicle owner.

What did the court decide?

Insurance company directed to deposit compensation with interest; liberty reserved to recover amount from the vehicle owner.

The Divisional Manager Vs Smt. Girijavva W/O Yashvanthappa… — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:14906-DB MFA No. 100164 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD AND

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100164 OF 2018

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PB NO.21, J.C.ROAD, SAGAR, DIST: SHIVAMOGGA-577401, REPRESENTED THROUGH DIVISIONAL MANAGER.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. NAGANGOUDA R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2024.10.19 11:09:05 +0530

¶13

SMT. GIRIJAVVA W/O. YASHVANTHAPPA HAKKALLI, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. GODACHIKONDA, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI-581109.

¶14

MAMATA D/O. YASHVANTHAPPA HAKKALLI, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: GODACHIKONDA, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI-581109.

¶15

NAVEENA S/O. YASHVANTHAPPA HAKKALLI, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: GODACHIKONDA, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI-581109.

¶16

NANJUNDI S/O. YASHVANTHAPPA HAKKALLI,

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14906-DB MFA No. 100164 of 2018

¶18

AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: GODACHIKONDA, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI-581109.

¶19

MAHABALA S/O. CHANDRAPPA PUJARI, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: MANAKALI, INDIRA NAGAR, SAGAR, DIST: SHIVAMOGGA-577402.

¶20

N. RAGHAVENDRA SHETTY AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SRI GURURAJ COFFEE WORKS, MARKET ROAD, SAGAR, DIST: SHIVAMOGGA-577402.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. S.G.KADADAKATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4. NOTICE TO R6 IS SERVED. APPEAL AGAINST RESPONDENT NO.5 DISMISSED V.C.O. DATED 06.06.2023)

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.09.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.190/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, HIREKERUR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.16,21,500/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALISATION.

¶24

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

¶26

AND

¶27

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14906-DB MFA No. 100164 of 2018

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶30

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD)

¶31

This appeal is filed by the insurer under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act(hereinafter referred to as ‘the MV Act’, for short) challenging the judgment and award dated 18.09.2017 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and AMACT, Hirekerur, in MVC No.190/2011 whereby the liability has been fixed on the insurance company and further directing the insurance company to pay the compensation of Rs.16,21,500/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

¶32

Brief facts of the case are that, Yashvanthappa was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-27-Q-4701 on 13.06.2009 and when he came near Betakerur cross, at that time, a goods vehicle bearing registration No.KA-15-2384 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against said Yashvanthappa. Due to the impact, he fell down and suffered injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The legal representatives of deceased Yashvanthappa have filed a claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act.

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14906-DB MFA No. 100164 of 2018

¶34

After service of summons, respondent No.1

¶35

remained absent and was placed exparte. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 appeared through counsel and filed their statement of objections.

¶36

On consideration of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the following issues and additional issue:

¶37

ISSUES

¶38

1. Whether the petitioners prove that, Yashvantappa S/o. Basavanneppa died due to the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident which took place on 13-06-2009 at 11-30 a.m. on Hirekerur to Humsabhavi road, near Betakerur cross due to the rash and negligent driving of goods vehicle No.Ka-15-2384 by its driver?

¶39

2. Whether the respondent No.3 proves that, the accident was due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the deceased himself?

¶40

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so for how much amount and from whom?

¶41

4. What order or award?

¶42

Additional issue

¶43

1. Whether the 2^nd respondent proves that, petitioner is bad for non-joinder of necessary party?

¶44

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14906-DB MFA No. 100164 of 2018

¶45

On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has answered issue No.1 in the affirmative, issue No.3 partly in the affirmative and issue No.2 and additional issue No.1 in the negative and awarded compensation of Rs.16,21,500/- with interest at 6% per annum fixing the liability on the appellant-insurer.

¶46

Being aggrieved by the same, the insurance company is before this Court.

¶47

Sri.Nagangouda R. Kuppelur, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company has contended that, admittedly, as on the date of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid driving licence. Since the insured has violated the policy condition, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation and the Tribunal has erred in fastening the liability on the insurance company. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.

¶48

Respondent No.6/owner of the vehicle though

¶49

served has remained unrepresented.

¶50

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14906-DB MFA No. 100164 of 2018

¶51

Sri. S.G. Kadadakatti, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4/claimants has contended that even assuming that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective diving licence, so far as the claimants are concerned, who are third parties, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singh and others¹ and in the case of Pappu and others v. Vinod Kumar Lamba and another² and full Bench decision of this Court in New India Assurance Company Limited, Bijapur v. Yallavva and another³ insurance company has to pay the compensation amount in the first instance with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. He contends that the impugned judgment and award does not call interference and prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶52

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶53

It is not in dispute that Yashvanthappa Hakkalli died in a road traffic accident that occurred on 13.06.2009 due to

¶54

1 (2004) 3 SUPREME COURT CASES 297

¶55

2 2018 ACJ 690

¶56

3 2020(2) KCCR 1405

¶57

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14906-DB MFA No. 100164 of 2018

¶58

rash and negligent driving by the driver of the goods vehicle bearing registration No.KA-15-2384 and the Tribunal has come to a clear finding that as per Ex.R-7-original driving licence, the driving licence of respondent No.1 was valid from 01.11.2005 to 30.10.2008. The accident had occurred on 13.06.2009 and

¶59

as on the date of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid driving licence. As per Ex.R-7, he got renewed the driving licence from 23.02.2010. Therefore, it is very clear from the finding of the Tribunal that he got renewed the driving licence after the accident and admittedly he was not having valid driving licence as on the date of the accident. Since the insured had violated the policy condition, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. Therefore, the Tribunal has committed an error in fastening the liability on the insurance company. To that effect the finding of the Tribunal requires to be set aside. Further, the claimants being third parties, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pappu’s case and Swaran Singh ’s case (supra) and the full Bench decision of this Court in Yallavva’s case (supra), the insurance company has to

¶60

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14906-DB MFA No. 100164 of 2018

¶61

pay compensation to the claimants in the first instance and shall recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.

¶62

12. Accordingly, the following order is passed:

¶63

The appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 18.09.2017 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and AMACT, Hirekerur, in MVC No.190/2011, is modified as follows:

¶64

“ The insurance company is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount with interest at 6% per annum within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Liberty is reserved to the insurance company to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.”

¶65

Registry is directed to transmit the amount in deposit and

¶66

the TCR to the Tribunal concerned forthwith.

¶67

Draw award accordingly.

¶68

Sd/(H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶69

Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

¶70

kmv