Allowed

The Branch Manager v. Upendra Achar

Karnataka HC19 Mar 2024MFA/4735/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal by an insurer against a Tribunal award in a motor accident claim. The driver of the insured Tipper Lorry had no authorization to drive heavy goods/transport vehicles on the accident date, so liability fastened on the insurer was set aside and the insurer was exonerated.

What did the court decide?

Award set aside to the extent of liability on the insurer; insurer exonerated; records and deposit amount directed to be transmitted for refund to the Insurance Company.

The Branch Manager Vs Upendra Achar — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:11290 MFA No. 4735 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4735 OF 2014(MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BRANCH OFFICE, BHATKAL BY DIVISIONAL OFFICE, JEWEL PLAZA, MARUTHI VITHIKA, UDUPI, BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. O.MAHESH., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

UPENDRA ACHAR AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O MOODAHANGALUR, ANKADAKATTE ROAD, HANGALUR POST, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-576 101.

¶14

MOHAMMED FARHAN AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O MOHAMMED ASLAM, R/O GOODLUCK CROSS, CRYSTAL COMPLEX, NAVYAT COLONY, BHATKAL TALUK, U.K.DISTRICT-581 320.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶17

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:11290 MFA No. 4735 of 2014

¶20

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:30.04.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.1004/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MACT, UDUPI, (SITTING AT KUNDAPURA).

¶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

Notice to the respondents was ordered on 17.07.2014. A perusal of the office note depicts that respondents are served and unrepresented. They have neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as party in person.

¶25

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

¶26

The brief facts are these:

¶27

On the 9^th day of June 2011 at about 10:45 am., the claimant was riding the bicycle. At that time, near Hangaluru Village Unity Hall, a Tipper Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:11290 MFA No. 4735 of 2014

¶29

47-2595 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit a Benz Car bearing Registration No.MH-46-N-6369 from the backside and also hit the Fiat Car bearing Registration No.KA-19-N-7858 from the backside. Due to the impact, the Fiat Car came and hit the claimant's bicycle. As a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries. He was admitted to S.R.Acharya Hospital, Koteshwara and he was treated as an in-patient from 09.06.2011 to 15.06.2011. Contending that he is entitled for compensation, the claimant filed claim petition.

¶30

In response to the notice, the respondents appeared through their counsel and filed written statement denying the petition averments. Among other grounds, they prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶31

Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed issues, parties led evidence and marked the documents. The Tribunal vide Judgment dated:30.04.2014 allowed the petition in part. The Insurance Company has assailed the Judgment of the Tribunal in this appeal on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of appeal.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:11290 MFA No. 4735 of 2014

¶34

Learned counsel for the appellant has urged several contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant and perused the appeal papers and also the records with utmost care.

¶35

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

¶36

The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. Suffice it to note that the accident occurred on the 09^th day of June 2011. Mr.Imran - the driver of the Tipper Lorry was examined as RW1 and he furnished certain documents.

¶37

Ex.R.1 is the true copy of the driving license of Mr.Imran the driver of the Tipper Lorry. A perusal of the same depicts that it is issued on 02.07.2007 to be valid till 01.07.2027 for LMV (NT) and M-C with gear and there was authorization to drive any transport vehicle. Ex.R.2 is the DL-Particulars. A perusal of the same depicts that he was authorized to drive Auto rickshaw (NT) and Motor Cycle with Gear with effect from 26.05.2009. Hence, it can be safely concluded that he had no authorization to drive Heavy Goods Transport as on the date of

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:11290 MFA No. 4735 of 2014

¶39

accident. The Tribunal ought to have seen that the driver of the insured Tipper Lorry evidently did not held valid driving license authorizing him to drive Transport Vehicle and therefore, the driver did not have valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation.

¶40

To conclude, I can say only this much that the Tribunal has failed to have regard to relevant consideration and disregarded relevant matters.

¶41

For the reasons stated above, the Judgment dated:30.04.2014 passed by the Court of Addl. District and Sessions Judge and MACT, Udupi (Sitting at Kundapura) in M.V.C No.1004/2011 in so far as fastening the liability on the Insurance company is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, it is set-aside. The Insurance company is exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.

¶42

Resultantly, the Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed .

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:11290 MFA No. 4735 of 2014

¶45

The Registry concerned is directed to transmit the records

¶46

and the amount in deposit, if any to the Tribunal for refund of the same to the Insurance Company.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41

The Branch Manager v. Upendra Achar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Branch Manager v. Upendra Achar

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

The Branch Manager Vs Kum P G Mouna

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

Sri Kataiah @ Durgada Kataiah Vs K S Riyazuddin

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri Lino Tharakan

R Nanjappa Vs Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.

The Manager New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Boregowda