Ramesh Gowda H M Vs Master. Sarbjith Singh

MASTER SARBJITH SINGH S/O RAVINDRA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, # 9, SRI. NAGAKALYAMMAN, MAIN ROAD, BHARATH NAGAR, THANISANDRA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 045.

¶13

M/S. UNITED INDIA INS. CO. LTD. MOTOR CLAIMS HUB, NO.18, 6^TH FLOOR, NEAR KRUSHI BHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001, REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. K.T.GURUDEVA PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI. P.B.RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶16

2 -

¶17

MFA No. 3189 of 2019

¶18

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.07.2015 PASSED BY THE COURT OF V ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MACT, MAYOHALL UNIT, BANGALORE, SCCH-20, IN M.V.C.NO.2951/2014 AND FIXED THE LIABILITY AGAINST THE INSURANCE COMPANY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶19

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 23.10.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

¶21

CAV JUDGMENT

¶22

The present appeal is filed to set aside the judgment and award dated 15.07.2015 in MVC No.2951/2014, passed by the V Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and MACT, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore (herein after referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short).

¶23

The appellant herein is the respondent No.2 before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 herein is the petitioner/claimant before the Tribunal and the respondent No.2 herein is the respondent No.1 before the Tribunal.

¶24

3 -

¶25

MFA No. 3189 of 2019

¶26

The guardian of the petitioner/claimant has filed

¶27

MVC No.2951/2014 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘the MV Act’ for short) claiming the compensation amount of Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by minor claimant in a road traffic accident, along with interest.

¶28

The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

¶29

On 03.05.2014 at about 9.30 a.m., the petitioner/claimant who was aged about 13 years and studying in 8^th standard at Saniya School, Saraipalya, was walking as a pedestrian on Thanisandra Road. When he reached near Amarjyothi Layout Road, the driver of lorry bearing Registration No.KA-03/C-1660, while reversing the vehicle negligently and without giving any signal, dashed against the claimant. As a result, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was immediately shifted to Ambedkar Hospital, where he was treated as an inpatient. He spent about Rs.2,00,000/towards medical,

¶30

4 -

¶31

MFA No. 3189 of 2019

¶32

conveyance, food, transport, and other incidental

¶33

expenses and was advised to undergo a further operation. Due to the accident, the claimant suffered pain, mental agony, and loss of one academic year.

¶34

The claimant contended that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent act of the lorry driver. The respondent No.1-United India Insurance Company, being the insurer and the respondent No.2, being the owner of the vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. After the petition was filed, summons was served on both respondents. The respondent No.2 failed to appear and was placed ex parte. The respondent No.1 appeared through counsel and filed a written statement admitting the issuance of an insurance policy for the said lorry but limiting its liability to the terms of the policy. The respondent No.1 denied the allegations regarding negligence, the age of the claimant and the expenses claimed. It was further contended that the Driver did not possess a valid driving license and the vehicle did not have a valid permit and fitness certificate

¶35

5 -

¶36

MFA No. 3189 of 2019

¶37

on the date of the accident, thereby violating policy conditions. The insurer therefore stated that the compensation claimed is exorbitant.

¶38

Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. The guardian of the claimant was examined as PW-1, along with two witnesses PW-2 and PW-3 and got marked documents as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P13. On behalf of respondent No.1, its Assistant Manager was examined as RW-1, and Administrative Officer as RW-2 and got marked documents as per Ex.R1 to Ex.R4.

¶39

By judgment and Award dated 15.07.2015, the

¶40

Tribunal held that the driver did not possess valid and effective driving license and owner of the vehicle does not possess valid permit to the offending vehicle. Hence, it was held that respondent No.2-Owner of the vehicle was solely liable to pay compensation of Rs.3,13,000/- with interest at 6% p.a.

¶41

6 -

¶42

MFA No. 3189 of 2019

¶43

The learned counsel appearing for the

¶44

appellant/owner of the vehicle would contend that the accident occurred on 03.05.2014 involving lorry No.KA-03C-1660, when the vehicle was duly insured with United India Insurance Company Limited, under a valid policy, possessed a current fitness certificate, and was driven by a licensed driver holding a valid and effective driving licence. Despite these facts, the Tribunal failed to appreciate the validity of the insurance policy, fitness certificate, and driving license and erroneously fixed liability on the owner of the vehicle. The appellant was unaware of the Award passed by the Tribunal until execution proceedings began in Execution Case No.1877/2017. However, he immediately obtained certified copies and filed the present appeal. In view of the enforceable insurance policy, valid licence and roadworthy condition of the vehicle, the appellant prays that the Tribunal’s perverse and erroneous Award fastening liability on the appellant/owner be set aside.

¶45

7 -

¶46

MFA No. 3189 of 2019

¶47

9. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either

¶48

side.

¶49

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both parties and perused the material on record, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a just and reasonable ground for permitting the production of additional documents. The appellant has filed I.A.No.1/2024 under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking permission to produce additional documents, namely, the copies of the Driving Licence, Fitness Certificate, and Goods Permit Extract valid from 30.04.2010 to 29.04.2015. It is stated in the accompanying affidavit that the appellant, who was respondent No.2 before the Tribunal, had been placed ex parte in MVC No.2951/2014 and therefore, could not produce these documents earlier. The said documents, which have already been filed along with the application are relevant and material to determine the issues relating to the validity of the vehicle’s permit, fitness and the

¶50

8 -

¶51

MFA No. 3189 of 2019

¶52

driver’s licence, which directly affect the question of liability.

¶53

In view of the same, the following order is passed:

¶54

i) Appeal is allowed in part .

¶55

ii) The judgment and award dated 15.07.2015 passed in MVC No.2951/2014 by the V Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and MACT, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore, are hereby set aside.

¶56

iii) The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration after taking on record the documents produced along with I.A.No.1/2024, affording reasonable opportunity to both parties to adduce additional evidence if they so desire, and thereafter, dispose of the claim petition afresh in accordance with law.

¶57

iv) The appeal is remitted back and directed the Tribunal to consider I.A.No.1/2024 filed under Order XLI

¶58