Cholamandalam Ms General Vs Annaiah — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Cholamandalam Ms General Vs Annaiah — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the appellant-insurer: the judgment and award dated 05.03.2014 in MVC.No.229/2012 is confirmed; the amount in deposit is to be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement to the claimants on due identification; Registry to send back trial Court records with a copy of the judgment to the Tribunal.

Issue for consideration

Whether the contention of the appellant-insurer regarding the identity of the name of the claimant has been established? +2 more

Court's answer

On point No.1, the slight discrepancy between the claimant's name (Annaiah) in the claim petition/FIR/Ex.P15 and the entry 'Nannaiah Goudu' in the wound certificate Ex.P4 and some medical receipts may be a mistake of the concerned hospital authority; nothing in the cross-examination of PW-1 and PW-2 disbelieved that the victim is the claimant, and the discharge summary Ex.P14 correctly records 'Annaiya'; the mistake is not significant enough to cast doubt on the claimant's identity and the claim petition cannot be rejected on that ground.

Ratio / Principle

Point No.1 answered in the 'Negative': the insurer's contention on the claimant's identity is not established; the Tribunal discussed the evidence in detail and reached a right conclusion, and this Court finds no reason to interfere with that finding.

Key takeaways

Factual findings: the records reveal the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the three-wheeler by its driver; the driver's driving licence at Ex.P6 shows licence to drive motorcycle with gear from 16.03.2012, LMV-NT (Light Motor Vehicle - Non Transport) from 16.03.2012, and LMV three-wheeler from 16.03.2012.ratio¶¶60
Although the offended vehicle is a goods auto (a commercial vehicle) and the driver held no transport-vehicle licence, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd. ((2016) 4 SCC 298) — that a driver authorised to drive a non-transport vehicle can drive a transport vehicle without an endorsement — as approved by the Constitution Bench in M/S. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance vs Rambha Devi ((2019) 12 SCC 816), the insurer cannot take this defence to disown its liability; the insurer is liable to pay compensation and the Tribunal's finding calls for no interference.ratio¶¶64

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Insurer's appeal under Section 173(1) MV Act against the Fast Track Court, K.G.F. award (05.03.2014, MVC No.229/2012) of Rs.70,000/- with 6% interest to a pillion rider injured when a luggage auto (KA-08-4938) driven rashly and negligently dashed his motorcycle. (1) Identity: variance between the claimant's name 'Annaiah' and 'Nannaiah Goudu' in the wound certificate Ex.P4 and some medical receipts was held to be a probable hospital-entry mistake — FIR, Ex.P15 and discharge summary Ex.P14 ('Annaiya') support the claimant's identity; cross-examination brought out nothing to the contrary; point No.1 answered in the 'Negative' and the Tribunal's finding left undisturbed. (2) Licence class: the driver's Ex.P6 licence (motorcycle-with-gear, LMV-NT and LMV three-wheeler, each from 16.03.2012) lacked a transport-vehicle endorsement although the offending goods auto is a commercial vehicle; however, following Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., (2016) 4 SCC 298 — a driver authorised to drive non-transport vehicles may drive transport vehicles without endorsement — as approved by the Constitution Bench in M/S. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance vs Rambha Devi, (2019) 12 SCC 816, the insurer's defence failed and it remained liable. Appeal dismissed; award confirmed; deposit directed to be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement to the claimants on due identification.