Allowed

Sri. P v. Balaji Ganes v Sri. a G Munivenkata Gowda

Karnataka HC22 Aug 2024MFA/8562/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimant's appeal against a motor accident compensation award that exonerated the insurer on licence grounds. The court held the driver's licence was valid on the accident date despite discrepancies in documents, so the insurer was jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

What did the court decide?

Award modified to hold insurer (respondent no.2) jointly and severally liable; insurer directed to deposit compensation within six weeks, to be released to claimant.

Sri. P v Balaji Ganes Vs Sri. a G Munivenkata Gowda — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:33773 MFA No. 8562 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8562/2016 (MV-I)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

SRI P.V. BALAJI GANES S/O P.R.VASUDEV, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/A NO.27, RANGANATA NILAYA, GANES TEMPLE ROAD, KOLAR TOWN-563101

¶6

…APPELLANT

¶7

(BY SRI GOPAL KRISHNA N., ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

SRI. A G MUNIVENKATA GOWDA S/O GOVINDAPPA, MAJOR IN AGE, R/A NO.268/296, 4^TH MAIN, 6^TH CROSS, BYREGOWDA COMPOUND, P.C.EXTENSION, KOLAR-563101.

¶10

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

¶11

ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD ICICI LOMBARD HOUSE, 414, VEER SAVARKAR MARG, NEAR SIDHI VINAYAKA TEMPLE, PRABHADEVI, MUMBAI-400 025, REP BY ITS MANAGER.

¶12

…RESPONDENTS

¶13

(BY SRI A.N. KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2; V/O DATED 08.03.2022 NOTICE TO R1 HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶14

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.07.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.37/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, & CJM, MACT, KOLAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶15

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

¶16

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:33773 MFA No. 8562 of 2016

¶18

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶19

Challenging judgment and award dated 20.07.2016

¶20

passed by Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kolar (for short 'Tribunal') in MVC.no.37/2014, this appeal is filed by claimant.

¶21

Sri Gopal Krishna N., learned counsel for appellant submitted that appeal was by claimant only against finding on liability. It was submitted, while passing impugned award, though respondent no.1 - owner-cum-driver had examined himself as RW-1 and produced original driving licence as Ex.R1 and extract issued by RTO as Ex.R3, which showed that his licence was current as on date of accident, Tribunal had disbelieved same merely on ground that police had charge-sheeted driver as per Ex.P5 under Sections 181 and 3 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ' M.V. Act '). It was submitted, charge-sheet being not conclusive material about possession of driving licence, said finding was erroneous and seeks for allowing appeal.

¶22

On other hand, Sri A.N. Krishna Swamy, learned counsel for respondent no.2 - insurer sought to oppose appeal. It was submitted, though there would be no dispute about proposition of law submitted by learned counsel for claimant,

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:33773 MFA No. 8562 of 2016

¶24

fact that there was discrepancy regarding date upto which

¶25

licence was issued between Ex.R1, wherein it is shown to be issued upto 17.06.2014 whereas as per Ex.R3, it was issued upto 01.02.2020 would cast doubt about same and therefore, Tribunal award would be justified.

¶26

Heard learned counsel, perused impugned

¶27

judgment and award and record.

¶28

From above since only ground on which award is challenge regarding liability, point that would arise for consideration is:

¶29

"Whether finding of Tribunal on issues no.2 and 3 absolving liability of insurer call for interference?"

¶30

Occurrence of accident involving insured vehicle due to rash and negligent driving, claimant sustaining injuries therein are not in dispute. Issuance of insurance policy and its validity as on date of accident are also not in dispute. Only ground for holding insurer not liable to pay compensation is that as per Ex.P5, respondent no.1 - owner-cum-driver of offending vehicle namely, Maruthi Ertiga Car bearing registration no.KA-07-M-4700 was prosecuted for offence under Sections 181 and 3 of M.V. Act. Perusal of Ex.R1 produced by respondent no.1 - owner-cum-driver and Ex.R3 would indicate

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:33773 MFA No. 8562 of 2016

¶32

that respondent no.1 had driving licence to drive light motor vehicle valid from 03.12.2001. Though, there is discrepancy between Ex.R1 and Ex.R3 about date upto which same is valid, original driving licence card issued by RTO, Kolar, would indicate that it was valid upto 17.06.2014. Since accident occurred on 09.08.2013, licence would be valid as on date of accident. Consequently, insurer cannot escape liability. Hence, point for consideration is answered in negative. Accordingly, following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

i. Appeal is allowed.

¶35

ii. Impugned award is modified to extent of holding respondent no.2 - insurer jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

¶36

iii. Respondent no.2 - insurer is directed to deposit compensation before Tribunal within a period of six weeks from date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶37

iv. On deposit, compensation is ordered to be released in favour of claimant.

¶38

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶39

GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

Sri. P v. Balaji Ganes v Sri. a G Munivenkata Gowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. P v. Balaji Ganes v Sri. a G Munivenkata Gowda

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

Smt Vijayalakshmi Vs Sri v Lakshminarayana

Smt Bhavya K Vs Sri Madhusudan M Krishnamurthy

Smt Bylamma Vs Sri Hanumantharaju

Sri Raju Vs United India Insurance Co., Ltd.

Sri Rudresh Vs Sri Annappa B

Sri. Venkataramanappa Vs Sri. Kiran. S