Dismissed

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Ravi Naik

Karnataka HC21 Aug 2024MFA/1849/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Insurer's appeal against MACT award contended the driver of a light goods vehicle lacked a transport endorsement on his LMV licence, breaching policy conditions. Following Mukund Dewangan, the court held the contention untenable and dismissed the appeal, directing deposit and transmission of compensation to the Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; deposited amount to be transmitted to Tribunal for payment; balance, if any, to be deposited by insurer within six weeks.

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Ravi Naik — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:33563 MFA No. 1849 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1849 / 2017 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., I FLOOR, S.S.COMPLEX, B.H.ROAD, SHIMOGA-577 201, BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SMT.RENUKA H R., ADVOCATE [VC])

¶11

AND:

¶12

RAVI NAIK S/O BHEEMA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, C/O JAYA NAIK, R/O GONIBEEDU VILLAGE, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶13

Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

H.S.ANIL KUMAR, S/O SHANKARA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O KESARU KOPPA, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT.

¶15

H.S.MANJUNATH, S/O SHANKARA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O SOMAPURA, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(R1 TO R3 ARE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:33563 MFA No. 1849 of 2017

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.11.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.322/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE 4^TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIMOGA, SITTING AT BHADRAVATHI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1,42,500/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

Challenging judgment and award dated 09.11.2016 passed by IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Shimoga, sitting at Bhadravati and Additional MACT (IV) in MVC no.322/2015 ('Tribunal' for short), this appeal is filed by Insurance Company.

¶24

Smt.H.R.Renuka, learned counsel for appellant submitted, appeal was by Insurer. It was submitted, occurrence of accident, claimant sustaining grievous injuries, filing of claim petition and Tribunal awarding compensation therein are not in dispute. It was submitted as per charge sheet at Exhibit P8, driver of insured vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive vehicle. And mere possession of LMV licence would not permit him to drive LMV transport vehicle. Therefore, there was violation of terms and conditions of Insurance Policy.

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:33563 MFA No. 1849 of 2017

¶26

It was submitted, Exhibit R1-Driving Licence extract of driver of insured vehicle authorized him to drive Light Motor Vehicle was valid from 05.10.2006 to 09.05.2026. It was submitted, insured vehicle involved in present case was TATA ACE, which would be a light goods vehicle. Since driver had not obtained non-transport endorsement on driving licence prior to date of accident i.e. dated 17.10.2014, breach of policy conditions stood established. On said grounds sought for allowing appeal.

¶27

On other hand, respondents no.1 to 3 are served and unrepresented.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for appellant and perused impugned judgment and award.

¶29

In view of contentions, only point that would arise for consideration is:

¶30

"whether Tribunal was justified in fastening liability on Insurer?"

¶31

From above, occurrence of accident involving insured vehicle, which is a light goods vehicle and its driver possessing driving licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle without

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:33563 MFA No. 1849 of 2017

¶33

transport endorsement but current, as on date of accident

¶34

are not in dispute. Insurer's challenge is on sole ground of non-possession of transport endorsement on driving licence.

¶35

Said ground would be squarely covered by ratio laid down in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ,

¶36

reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663, wherein said contention has been negatived and holding Insurer liable to pay compensation. It is also seen that Tribunal has referred to said decision while passing impugned award. Thus, appeal is devoid of merits. Consequently, following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

i. Appeal is dismissed ;

¶39

ii. Amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to Tribunal for payment; and

¶40

iii. Balance amount, if any, to be deposited by appellant-Insurer within a period of six weeks before Tribunal.

¶41

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶42

¶43

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Ravi Naik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Ravi Naik

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

Rohith Vs the Managing Director

M C Udaya Kumar Vs Mahaboob Basha

Sri Sannakariyappa Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Smt Vijayalakshmi Vs Sri v Lakshminarayana

Smt Bhavya K Vs Sri Madhusudan M Krishnamurthy

Smt Bylamma Vs Sri Hanumantharaju