Allowed

The Branch Manager v. Kum P G Mouna

Karnataka HC18 Mar 2024MFA/1876/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Insurance appeal against a motor-accident award fastening joint liability on it. The driving licence of the rider/owner, though showing validity till 2029, was issued after the date of the accident and bore over-writing. Holding the rider unlicensed on the accident date, the High Court exonerated the insurer and allowed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Judgment and award set aside insofar as it fastened liability on the Insurance Company; insurer exonerated; owner/rider K.P.Prajwal directed to satisfy the award; deposit refunded to insurer.

The Branch Manager Vs Kum P G Mouna — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:10978 MFA No. 1876 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1876 OF 2013(MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, MADIKERI BRANCH, COLLEGE ROAD, MADIKERI, BY REGIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., 5^TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 027. BY ITS MANAGER.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. O.MAHESH., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

KUM. P.G.MOUNA

¶13

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AGE: 23 YEARS, D/O P.N.GANAPATHY, MUTHARMUDI VILLAGE, MADIKERI TALUK-571 201.

¶15

K.P.PRAJWAL AGED 23 YEARS, S/O K.P.POOVAIAH, KOODLOOR, CHETTALLI VILLAGE AND POST, SOMWARPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 236.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. CHIDANANDA URS.B.G., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. D.P.PRASANNA., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:10978 MFA No. 1876 of 2013

¶20

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:26.06.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.78/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE, MACT, KODAGU, AT MADIKERI.

¶21

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Sri.O.Mahesh., learned counsel for the appellant has appeared through video conferencing.

¶24

Sri.D.P.Prasanna., learned counsel for respondent No.2 has appeared in person.

¶25

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status and rankings before the Tribunal.

¶26

It is the case of the claimant that on the 17^th day of March 2009 around 3:00 pm., she was returning from Field Marshal Kariappa College, Madikeri to her house and on the way near Madikeri Rural Police Station, the rider of motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-09-W-1677 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit her. As a result of which, she was

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:10978 MFA No. 1876 of 2013

¶28

injured. Contending that she is entitled for compensation, the claimant filed claim petition.

¶29

In response to the notice, first respondent appeared through his counsel and filed objections denying the petition averments. The second respondent Insurance Company appeared through its counsel and filed objections stating that the Insurance Policy was issued in favor of one K.K.Santhosh Kumar. It denied that the rider of the vehicle was not having valid driving license to drive the motorcycle at the time of accident. Among other grounds, it prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶30

The third respondent appeared through his counsel and filed objections stating that with effect from 12.03.2009 he was not the owner of the vehicle and that it is K.P.Prajwal who is the owner. Among other grounds, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶31

Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed issues, parties led evidence and marked the documents. The Tribunal vide Judgment dated:26.06.2012 allowed the petition and held that respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:10978 MFA No. 1876 of 2013

¶33

the compensation. The Insurance Company has assailed the Judgment of the Tribunal in this appeal on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of appeal.

¶34

Sri.O.Mahesh., learned counsel for the appellant in presenting his arguments strenuously urged that the Judgment of the Tribunal is contrary to the evidence on record and law.

¶35

Next, he submits that the rider being the owner of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license as on the date of the accident.

¶36

A further submission is made that the rider of the offending vehicle pleaded guilty and paid fine as per the certified copy of the order sheet in C.C.No.44/2009.

¶37

Learned counsel vehemently contended that as per Ex.R.5 Driving License Extract, the driving license of the rider was valid till 19.07.2029, ignoring the fact that it was issued on 20.07.2009 i.e., after the date of accident in question which was on 17.03.2009, the Tribunal has allowed the petition.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:10978 MFA No. 1876 of 2013

¶40

Lastly, he submits that viewed from any angle, the Judgment of the Tribunal is untenable. Counsel therefore, submits that the appeal may be allowed.

¶41

Learned counsel Sri.D.P.Prasanna., for respondent No.2 justified the Judgment of the Tribunal. He submits that the appeal is devoid of merits and the same may be dismissed.

¶42

Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the appeal papers and also the records with utmost care.

¶43

The point that requires consideration is whether the Tribunal is justified in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company?

¶44

The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. The issue revolves around the driving license of the rider and owner of the offending vehicle. It is not in dispute that the accident occurred on the 17^th day of March 2009. It is also not in dispute that K.P.Prajwal being the owner and rider of the offending vehicle caused the accident. What is required to be considered is whether the rider and owner of the offending vehicle was holding valid and effective driving license

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:10978 MFA No. 1876 of 2013

¶47

as on the date of the accident. A perusal of certified copy the driving license at Ex.R.5 depicts that it is valid till 19.07.2029 and the same was issued on 20.07.2009. It is pivotal to note that there is an over-writing in the copy of the driving license. This aspect of the matter has been over-looked by the Tribunal. As already noted above, the accident occurred in the month of March 2009. If that be so, the rider and owner of the offending vehicle K.P.Prajwal was not having valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident. Hence, fixing the liability on the Insurance Company is unsustainable in law. The Judgment and the award of the Tribunal is otherwise opposed to law, facts and circumstances of the case.

¶48

For the reasons stated above, the Judgment dated:26.06.2012 passed by the Court of District Judge and M.A.C.T., Kodagu at Madikeri in M.V.C.No.78/2009 in so far fastening the liability on the Insurance Company is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, it is set-aside. The Insurance Company is exonerated from its liability to pay the compensation.

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:10978 MFA No. 1876 of 2013

¶51

In view of exoneration of the Insurance Company from its liability, the rider and owner of the vehicle K.P.Prajwal is directed to satisfy the award of the Tribunal.

¶52

Resultantly, the Miscellaneous First Appeal is

¶53

allowed .

¶54

The Registry concerned is directed to transmit the amount in deposit to the Tribunal forthwith for refund of the same to the Insurance Company.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

The Branch Manager v. Kum P G Mouna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Branch Manager v. Kum P G Mouna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S C Shivakumar Vs the Chief Traffic Manager

Sri B N Nagesh Vs Sri Ravikumara

The Manager Vs Yadhavamurthy

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri P Kempanna Gowda

Sri Kataiah @ Durgada Kataiah Vs K S Riyazuddin

Sri Nataraju Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.