The Branch Manager Vs Kum Dhanyashri — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

The Branch Manager Vs Kum Dhanyashri — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellant Insurance Company; both appeals dismissed, amount in deposit to be transferred forthwith to the Tribunal, Registry directed to return Trial Court Records with certified copy of the order, and no costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Insurance Company (appellant) is liable to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MVC No.798/2012 and MVC No.800/2012, notwithstanding its contention that the driver of the offending auto rickshaw did not hold a valid and effective driving licence. +1 more

Court's answer

Both M.F.A. No.2799/2015 and M.F.A.No.2800/2015 filed by the Insurance Company are dismissed: this Court finds no reasons to interfere with the Tribunal's well considered order holding the Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation.

Ratio / Principle

Endorsing the Tribunal's reasoning: RW.1 (Deputy General Manager of the insurer) adduced no evidence that the driver lacked a driving licence, and Ex.R1 (notarized copy of the driving licence) disclosed that the driver Krishna held a valid and effective driving licence for the three-wheeler auto rickshaw, which the insurer did not dispute; therefore the defence of no driving licence was rejected.

Key takeaways

Consistent with this Court's earlier orders in MFA No.2798/2015 and MFA No.8205/2014 arising out of the very same accident, the Court proceeded on the position that, in light of Mukund Dewangan's case, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation, notwithstanding the insurer's argument invoking the Supreme Court's direction for amendment of the law.ratio¶¶63

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor Vehicles Act, S.173(1) — Insurer's liability — Driver's driving licence — Appeals by United India Insurance Company Ltd. against the common judgment and award dated 08.09.2014 of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, MACT, Srirangapatna, in MVC No.798/2012 (Rs.10,000/-) and MVC No.800/2012 (Rs.7,500/-) with interest @ 6% p.a. — Dismissed. The Tribunal had found the insurer liable because RW.1, Deputy General Manager of the insurer, adduced no evidence that the auto rickshaw driver lacked a driving licence, while Ex.R1 (notarized copy of the driving licence) showed that the driver, Krishna, held a valid and effective driving licence for the three-wheeler auto rickshaw, which the insurer did not dispute. Although counsel for the insurer argued that the driver held only an LMV (non-transport) licence issued on 27.10.2009 and invoked the Supreme Court's direction for amendment in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. (AIR 2017 SCC 3668), this Court, consistent with its earlier orders in MFA No.2798/2015 and MFA No.8205/2014 arising out of the very same accident holding the insurer liable in light of Mukund Dewangan's case, found no reasons to interfere with the Tribunal's well considered order. Amount in deposit to be transferred to the Tribunal; Trial Court Records to be returned; no costs. (Single-judge Bench: Lalitha Kanneganti, J.; NC: 2025:KHC:10299)

NC: 2025:KHC:10299 MFA No. 2799 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 2800 of 2015

1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2799 OF 2015 (MV-I)

C/W

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2800 OF 2015 (MV-I) IN MFA No. 2799/2015

BETWEEN:

THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, NO.1119/B, M.C. ROAD, MANDYA - 571 401.

Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

BY REGIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., 5TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 001, BY ITS MANAGER.

(BY SRI. O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE)

…APPELLANT

AND:

KUM DHANYASHRI,

MINOR, AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS, D/O K.H. JAGADEESHA, SINCE MINOR F/G K.H. JAGADEESHA R/AT KIRNGOORU VILLAGE,

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:10299 MFA No. 2799 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 2800 of 2015

K SHETTAHALLI HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401.

2. NAYAJ KHAN,

MAJOR, S/O AJEEJ KHAN, R/AT NO. 1819, ANANDA RICE MILL ROAD, GANJAM, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401.

3. SHANKAR

MAJOR, S/O ANANDAIAH, R/AT DODDABESAGARA BEEDI, KARIGATRA ROAD, GANJAM TOWN, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK - 571 438.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY MS. DEEPASHREE D, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. R. NAGENDRA NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 15.12.2017, NOTICE TO R2 AND R3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 8.9.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.798/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, SRIRANGAPATNA, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.10,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF FILING THE PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT OF THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL.

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:10299 MFA No. 2799 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 2800 of 2015

IN MFA NO. 2800/2015

BETWEEN:

THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, NO.1119/B, M.C. ROAD, MANDYA - 571 401.

BY REGIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., 5TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 001, BY ITS MANAGER.

...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT. DEEPA, AGED 29 YEARS, W/O K.H. JAGADEESHA, R/AT KIRNGOORU VILLAGE, K SHETTAHALLI HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401.

NAYAJ KHAN, MAJOR, S/O AJEEJ KHAN, R/AT NO.1819, ANANDA RICE MILL ROAD, GANJAM, SRIRANGAPATNMA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401.

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:10299 MFA No. 2799 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 2800 of 2015

3. SHANKAR

MAJOR, S/O ANANDAIAH, R/AT DODDABESAGARA BEEDI, KARIGATRA ROAD, GANJAM TOWN, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK - 571 438.

...RESPONDENTS

(BY MS. DEEPASHREE D, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. R. NAGENDRA NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 15.12.2017, NOTICE TO R2 AND R3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 8.9.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.800/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, SRIRANGAPATNA, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.7,500/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF FILING THE PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT OF THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the award passed in M.V.C.No.798/2012 and M.V.C.No.800/2012 dated 08.09.2014 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge MACT, Srirangapatna, the

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10299 MFA No. 2799 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 2800 of 2015

Insurance Company is before this Court questioning the liability by filing MFA.No.2799/2015 and MFA.No.2800/2015 respectively. The Tribunal had disposed of the cases by way of a common judgment. Hence, this Court is disposing of the matters by way of common judgment.

When it comes to the liability, the Tribunal had observed that a perusal of the evidence on record discloses that RW.1 - Deputy General Manager of the second respondent - Insurance Company in his evidence has not stated the fact that the driver of the auto rickshaw was not having driving license to drive the same at the material time of accident. Hence, the second respondent has not let any evidence in support of the defense taken by him. On the other hand, Ex.R1 - the notarized copy of the driving license which was marked with concerned discloses that one Krishna the driver of the offending auto rickshaw is having valid and effective driving license to drive the three wheeler auto rickshaw. The Tribunal observed that the second respondent has not disputed the contents of the Ex.R1. Hence. the contention of respondent No.2 that the driver of the offending auto rickshaw had no driving license to drive the same on the material time of accident cannot be

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10299 MFA No. 2799 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 2800 of 2015

accepted and accordingly, held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation.

Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal erred in holding that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation when it is specifically pleaded and proved that since the driver of the insured transport auto has no valid and effective driving license authorizing him to drive a transport vehicle and admittedly he is having driving license for LMV (non-transport) which was issued to him for the first time on 27.10.2009. Learned counsel submits that now the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mukund

Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,¹

case has directed the Government to make necessary amendments that itself shows that the Hon'ble Apex Court has not approved the law laid down in Mukund Dewangan's case. As such, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation.

Learned counsel appearing for the claimants had relied on an order passed by this Court in MFA No.2798/2015 and MFA No.8205/2014 arising out of the very same accident,

1 AIR 2017 SCC 3668

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10299 MFA No. 2799 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 2800 of 2015

wherein this Court has held that in light of the Mukund

Dewangan's case the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no reasons to interfere with the well considered order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following:

ORDER

i) M.F.A. No.2799/2015 and M.F.A.No.2800/2015 filed by the Insurance company are dismissed .

ii) The amount in deposit shall be forthwith transferred to the Tribunal.

iii) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay.

iv) No costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

KA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20 CT: BHK