M/S National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Mr Devendrappa

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:38946 MFA No. 5146 of 2017

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5146 OF 2017 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MELAGIRI PLAZA,MCC "B" BLOCK, OPPOSITE TO DENTAL COLLEGE, DAVANAGERE, REGIONAL OFFICER SITUATE AT SUBHARAM COMPLEX NO.144,M G ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. REPRESENTED BY C K PARIMALA.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. GEETHA RAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

MR. DEVENDRAPPA S/O THIPPANNA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS RESIDENT OF HUCHAVANAHALLI VADDARAHATTI VILLAGE, DAVANGERE TALUK & DISTRICT-577 001.

¶14

MR. ANNERI, S/O SHANTHOJI RAO, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT 3^RD MAIN,12^TH CROSS, KTJ NAGAR, DAVANGERE-577 001.

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:38946 MFA No. 5146 of 2017

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

MR IMTIYAZ S/O LATE MEHABOOB SAB, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS RESIDENT OF BEHIND KALLESHWARA RICE MILL, BAMBOO BAZAR, DAVANGERE-577 001.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT.G.M.SUMITHRA, ADVOCATE FOR SMT.SARITHA KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1, NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH, VIDE ORDER DATED 09.09.2022 NOTICE TO R3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED30.01.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.997/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND VI MACT, AT DAVANGERE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1,95,700/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 8% P.A.FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION.

¶22

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

This appeal has been filed by the insurer against the judgment and award dated 30.01.2017 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge & VI MACT, Davangere (for short 'the Tribunal) in MVC.No.997/2013.

¶25

The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:38946 MFA No. 5146 of 2017

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

The brief facts of the case are that, on 18.03.2013, at around 7.00 p.m., the petitioner was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-17/R-6818 along with a pillion rider Gajendrappa and proceeding near Belliganudu village, Channagiri taluk, at that time, the respondent No.1 being the driver of auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-17/B-4991 (for short offending vehicle) drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle of the petitioner. Due to which, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. With these reasons, he prayed to award compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-.

¶29

Respondent No.1 is the driver, respondent No.2 is the owner and respondent No.3 is the insurer of the offending vehicle.

¶30

The respondents have appeared before the Tribunal. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 did not file any written statements. The Respondent No.3 filed written statement wherein it denied the contentions of the claimant and further contended that driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving license and he was driving the vehicle beyond the permitted limit and therefore respondent

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:38946 MFA No. 5146 of 2017

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

No.3 was not liable to pay the compensation and prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶35

On the basis of the rival contentions of the parties,

¶36

the Tribunal framed necessary issues.

¶37

The claimant to prove his case examined two

¶38

witnesses as PW-1 and PW-2 and marked Exs.P1 to P14. Respondent No.3 examined two witnesses as RW-1 and 2 and marked Exs.R1 to R8.

¶39

The Tribunal after hearing both the parties and appreciating the evidence on record held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver and the Tribunal after considering the materials on record awarded the following amount of compensation:

¶40

SL.NO.	PARTICULARS	AMOUNT IN(RS.)
1.	Medical expenses	10,000
2.	Loss of income during laid of period and rest	8,000
3.	Food and nourishment and attendant charges	10,000
4.	Injury, pain and sufferings	25,000
5.	Future loss of income	1,37,700
6.	Loss of amenities and discomfort	5,000
	Total	Rs.1,95,700/-

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:38946 MFA No. 5146 of 2017

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

It appears that the Tribunal has not considered the

¶44

contentions of the insurer that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license as well as he was driving the vehicle beyond the permitted limit and by the impugned judgment directed the respondents to pay the compensation.

¶45

The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 279,337, 338 of IPC r/w 187, 180, 181, 192 (A) of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.

¶46

The allegations against the driver of the offending vehicle was that he was not holding a valid and effective driving license and travelled beyond the permit limit. Although the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle appeared before the Tribunal, they did not dispute these allegations. The driver of the offending vehicle failed to produce his driving license to prove that he had valid license and owner of the offending vehicle was able to prove that he had not violated permit conditions and violated terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Similarly, the owner, despite appearing before the Court, did not furnish the required permit to prove that the vehicle did not

¶47

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:38946 MFA No. 5146 of 2017

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

travel beyond the permit limit. On the contrary, respondent No.3 examined an authorised officer from the RTO, who produced a letter and, in his evidence, confirmed that the autorickshaw was indeed driven beyond the permit limits. These facts are sufficient to prove that owner has violated the terms and conditions of policy of insurance and it is sufficient to absolve the liability of insurer to pay the compensation. The Tribunal has not considered the said fact, therefore, prayed to allow the appeal by absolving the liability of respondent No.3 to pay the compensation.

¶50

In the alternative, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that, at most, the respondent–insurer may be directed to pay the compensation, with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.

¶51

Learned counsel for the respondent-claimant contends that the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and it does not call for any interference by this Court. For any reason, if the Court comes to the conclusion that there is violation of terms and conditions of policy of insurance, in that event, the respondent-insurer be directed to

¶52

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:38946 MFA No. 5146 of 2017

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

pay the compensation with a liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.

¶55

The quantum of compensation is not seriously disputed, therefore, there is no need to re-consider the same.

¶56

As rightly submitted by learned counsel for the appellant, the driver of the offending vehicle was charge sheeted for the above said offences that he was not possessing a valid and effective driving license to drive the said class of vehicle. The owner of the vehicle – respondent No.2, is arrayed as accused No.2 and he was charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 192A of MV Act indicating that the said vehicle traveled beyond the permit limit. In addition to that respondent No.3 examined RW-2 and led the evidence to prove that the said vehicle was traveling beyond the permit limit. RW-2 was not cross-examined by the respondent No.2 and even the said evidence was not rebutted. This prima facie proves that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident, and that there was a clear violation of the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance.

¶57

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:38946 MFA No. 5146 of 2017

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd vs.

¶60

Swaran Singh¹ similarly the full Bench decision of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co.Ltd vs. Yallava and another² it was held that if there are any violation of the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance by the owner of the offending vehicle and the policy of insurance is in force, then the insurer shall pay the compensation to the third party and may recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. The said principle of law laid down can be made applicable to the facts of the present case. However, the Tribunal, in the impugned judgment, failed to consider these relevant facts and hence it warrants interference by this Court.

¶61

For the aforesaid discussions, the Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶62

ORDER

¶63

i. The appeal is allowed in part .

¶64

ii. The impugned judgment and award dated 30.01.2014 on the file of II Addl.Senior Civil Judge & VI MACT at Davangere is modified.

¶65

1 Petition (civil) 9027 of 2003

¶66

2 ILR 2020 KAR 2239

¶67

9 -

¶68

NC: 2025:KHC:38946 MFA No. 5146 of 2017

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

iii. The respondent No.3-Insurer shall pay the compensation with liberty to recover the same from the respondent No.2 in appropriate proceedings by virtue of this judgment and decree.

¶71

iv. Whatever the amount in deposit by the appellant shall be remitted to the Tribunal for disbursement to the claimant.

¶72

Registry is directed to send back the trial Court record

¶73

along with the copy of the judgment, to the Tribunal.

¶74

Sd/(UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE

¶75

AG

¶76

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

M/S National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mr Devendrappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mr Devendrappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Master M G Gagan Vs Sri S M Srinivasa Reddy

Sri Adarsha T S Vs Sri Shivananjaiah

Smt. Jayalakshmi Vs Sri. Kiran Chetty

Smt Heeravathi R Mendon Vs Ponnu Swamy M

Smt. Nagarathna Poojary Vs Sri. B. a. Mohammed

Santhosh H P Vs Prakash