The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs Sri. Shiva

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:42262 MFA No. 4089 of 2020

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4089 OF 2020 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., NO. 2241/4, GIRIAMMA SHAMBHUGOWDA COMPLEX, CHURCH ROAD, CHANNAPATNA, RAMNAGARA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., TP HUB, MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS, NO. 9/2, 2ND FLOOR, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR C.R, ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

AND:

¶13

SRI. SHIVA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS S/O SRI. MUNICHOODAIAH R/AT HULIBELE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶14

SMT. ALAMELAMMA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, W/O LATE H.N. URGEGOWDA,

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:42262 MFA No. 4089 of 2020

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

SRI. PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O SRI. GADARAIAH,

¶19

THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 ARE R/AT HULIBELE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. M.H. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 AND R3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED. 23.10.2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.159/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, KANAKAPURA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.3,83,100/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 7.5 PERCENT P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION OF ENTIRE AMOUNT.

¶23

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

¶24

JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

This appeal is filed by the Insurer (respondent No.3) being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 23^rd

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:42262 MFA No. 4089 of 2020

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

October 2018, passed in MVC No.159/2014 by the Senior

¶31

Civil Judge and MACT, Kanakapura.

¶32

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

¶33

The brief facts of the case are that, on 08.05.2011, at about 10.30 a.m., claimant as well as one Siddanna was loading firewood in a tractor and trailer bearing registration No.KA-42-T-502-503, respondent No.2 was a driver of the said vehicle at the time of accident. Due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor, the tractor and trailer toppled, causing the claimant to sustain grievous injuries. He underwent treatment and surgery and incurred substantial medical expenses. He has suffered permanent disability. With these reasons, he prayed to award compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

¶34

Respondent No.1 was the owner, respondent No.2 was alleged to be the driver and respondent No.3

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:42262 MFA No. 4089 of 2020

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

was the insurer of the offending tractor and trailer. Respondents No.1 and 3 have filed written statement before the Tribunal. Respondent No.1 in his written statement denied that the respondent No.2 was the driver of the said tractor and trailer. According to his contention,

¶38

one Shivashankar was the driver of offending vehicle and respondent No.2 had not at all worked under him as a driver of the offending vehicle. He denied other averments and contended that as per the medical records claimant sustained injuries by a self fall. Therefore, respondent No.1 is not liable to pay the compensation.

¶39

Respondent No.3 denied the petition

¶40

averments. It denied the occurence of accident and contended that driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective Driving Licence. Therefore, respondent No.3 is not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

¶41

The Tribunal framed necessary issues.

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:42262 MFA No. 4089 of 2020

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Claimant to prove his case examined two

¶45

witnesses and marked Exs.P.1 to P.29. Respondents No.1 and 2 did not enter the witness box. Respondent No.3 examined one witness as RW.1 and marked Exs.R1 and 2.

¶46

The Tribunal after hearing the arguments held that the respondent No.2 was the driver of offending vehicle at the time of accident and due to his rash and negligent act, accident occurred. The Tribunal awarded in all, an amount of Rs.3,83,100/- as compensation and directed respondent No.3-insurer to pay the said amount.

¶47

Respondent No.3-insurer preferred this appeal

¶48

on the ground that driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving Licence and respondent No.1 committed breach of terms of the Policy and hence, respondent No.3 was not at all liable to pay the compensation. It is for respondents No.1 and 2 to pay the same.

¶49

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:42262 MFA No. 4089 of 2020

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

Learned counsel for the appellant also

¶52

contended that the charge sheet itself discloses that driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective Driving Licence. Both owner and driver appeared before the Tribunal but they have not produced the Driving Licence.

¶53

The burden lies on them to show that respondent No.2 had valid licence to drive the said vehicle. In the evidence of RW.1 she has stated that driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective Driving Licence. In her crossexamination the claimants have not disputed the said facts, thereby it is sufficient to believe the contention of respondent No.3.

¶54

It is further contended that the Tribunal failed to consider these facts and held that respondent No.3 was unable to prove that respondent No.2 did not possess a valid and effective driving licence. The said finding is erroneous and prays to set aside the said findings. In the alternative, he submits that since the policy of the insurance was in force as on the date of accident,

¶55

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:42262 MFA No. 4089 of 2020

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

respondent No.3 may be directed to pay the compensation with a liberty to recover it from the owner of the vehicle.

¶58

It is also the contention of the insurer that interest awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side and therefore, reduce the rate of interest to 6% p.a.

¶59

Facts of accident, injuries sustained, amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal are not seriously disputed. Therefore, there is no need to reconsider the same. The dispute is only in respect of liability and rate of interest.

¶60

Claimant has impleaded owner as well as driver of the offending vehicle as respondents No.1 and 2. Respondents No.1 and 2 engaged a common advocate before the Tribunal and respondent No.1 has filed written statement. Except filing written statement, respondents No.1 and 2 did not participate in the trial of the matter.

¶61

As per Exs.P.1 and 3, driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective Driving Licence. It is

¶62

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:42262 MFA No. 4089 of 2020

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

unknown as to whether any notice was issued by the Investigating Officer under Section 133 of Motor Vehicles Act to secure the driving licence of respondent No.2. Respondent No.3 has not taken pain to examine the said Investigating Officer to substantiate its contention that driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective Driving Licence. Respondents No.1 and 2 did not produce the Driving Licence of respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 did not challenge the charge sheet filed against respondent No.2.

¶65

Looking to these facts, it is to be believed that respondent No.2 had no valid and effective Driving Licence to drive the said vehicle and therefore, respondent No.3 is liable to pay compensation to the claimant and it is at liberty to recover the same from respondent No.1.

¶66

With regard to the contention of respondent No.3-insurer regarding rate of interest on the compensation is concerned, it is discretion of the Tribunal

¶67

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:42262 MFA No. 4089 of 2020

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

to determine the rate of interest. The Tribunal relying on

¶70

the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh and Others vs. Rajbir Singh and Others reported in 2013(3) TAC 697 (SC), awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. The said findings are not contrary to law. Therefore, it does not call for interference by this Court.

¶71

For the aforesaid discussions, this Court

¶72

proceed to pass following:-

¶73

ORDER

¶74

i) The Appeal is allowed in part.

¶75

ii) The judgment and award dated 23^rd October 2018, passed in MVC.No.159/2014, by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT., Kanakapura in respect of liability is modified.

¶76

iii) Respondent No.3 being the insurer shall pay the compensation and it is at liberty to recover the same from respondent No.1-owner of the offending vehicle in an appropriate proceeding, on the basis of the award passed by this Court.

¶77