Owner appealed a motor accident award fastening liability on him because the rider lacked a driving licence. The High Court held the insurer must first pay the claimant and then recover from the owner, modifying the tribunal's award accordingly.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:1211 MFA No. 4258 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4258 OF 2017(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR. KARTHIK M., S/O MURUGESH D., AGEDA BOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT NO.83/4, 2ND MAIN, SHESHADRIPURAM, NEAR LAKSHMI NURSING HOME, BANGALORE - 560 020. (BY SRI. GANGARAJU C., ADVOCATE) AND:
…APPELLANT
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ANUP SEETHARAMA RAO., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. K.T. GURUDEVA PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:20.03.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.4757/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, PRINCIPAL M.A.C.T., COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU(SCCH-1), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 6,54,427/WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. (RS.6,04,427/-ONLY) FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the owner challenging the judgment and award dated 20.03.2017, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (SCCH-1), in MVC No.4757/2016, questioning the liability fastened on him.
NC: 2024:KHC:1211 MFA No. 4258 of 2017
compensation has fastened the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle on the reason that the rider of the offending vehicle – Scooter did not have valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. It is burden on the owner or rider to produce driving licence. It
is contended before the Tribunal that the rider of the Scooter was not having driving licence and the owner nor the rider did not produce the driving licence. Therefore, the Tribunal is correct in fastening the liability on the appellant – owner to pay the compensation.
Regarding pay and recovery:
that the rider of the scooter had not possessed driving licence at the time of the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal is correct in exonerating the Insurance Company from paying compensation to the claimant. However, as per Sub-section (2) of Section 149 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) when the
Insurance Company established the fact that the rider was
not holding driving licence, then as per Sub-sections (1), (4), (7) of Section 149 of the Act, the Insurance Company as if the judgment debtor shall satisfy the claim in respect of third parties and then recover the same from the owner of the scooter. Accordingly, the order of pay and recovery
is made as per the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of PAPPU AND OTHERS Vs. VINOD KUMAR LAMBA AND ANOTHER1 ; NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. SWARAN SINGH AND OTHERS2 and also as per the full bench decision of this Court in the case of NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. YELLAVVA AND ANOTHER3 . Accordingly, an order of pay and recovery is made. To this extent, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified.
1 (2018) 3 SCC 208
2 (2004) 3 SCC 297
3 2020 ACJ 2560
ORDER
ii. Respondent No.1 – Insurance Company shall pay the compensation amount to the claimant at the first instance and then recover the same from the owner of the Scooter bearing Reg.No.KA-05-JM-3408.
Sd/JUDGE
MH/-
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 9 CT:SNN
1 issue framed by the court
Whether liability for compensation should fall on the owner where the scooter rider had no valid driving licence, or on the insurer under pay-and-recovery.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Pappu and Others v. Vinod Kumar Lamba and AnotherRelied on
(2018) 3 SCC 208 · Who else cites this
National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singh and OthersRelied on
(2004) 3 SCC 297 · Who else cites this
New India Assurance Company Limited v. Yellavva and AnotherRelied on
2020 ACJ 2560
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Karthik M.
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Srikanth
Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
