Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 701
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
B.V. Nagarathna, Ravi V Hosmani, JJ.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Krishnappa Since Dead By Lrs - Respondent
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 7960 of 2013
Decided On : 23-06-2020
R. Jaiprakash, Advocate, Muniyappa D Naveen, Advocate
Headnote:
Negligence - Motor Accident Claims - M.V. Act - [Driving Licence, Compensation] - Section 166 of M.V. Act - Summary: The court addressed the issue of negligence and quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal in a motor accident case. The key legal provisions discussed were Section 149(2)(ii)(a) of the M.V. Act, which outlines the liability of the Insurance Company in case of non-possession of a valid driving licence by the driver, and the interpretation of the same by the Supreme Court. The court also considered the provisions related to renewal of driving licences under Section 15 of the Act. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the fundamental breach of the policy condition regarding the driving licence and its nexus with the cause of the accident. The court found that the insurer could not be absolved of its liability as the breach of the policy condition was not fundamental and did not contribute to the cause of the accident. Additionally, the court upheld the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal, considering the evidence presented by the claimants. The appeal was dismissed, and the insurer was directed to deposit the compensation amount with interest.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a motor accident where the driver of a lorry collided with a motorcycle, resulting in the death of the rider. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act seeking compensation. The Insurance Company challenged the judgment and award passed by the Claims Tribunal on the grounds of negligence and the quantum of compensation awarded.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Insurance Company could not be absolved of its liability as the breach of the policy condition regarding the driving licence was not fundamental and did not contribute to the cause of the accident. The court also upheld the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal, considering the evidence presented by the claimants.
Issues: The issues addressed by the court were: 1) Whether the Insurance Company was liable due to non-possession of a valid driving licence by the driver, and 2) Whether the monthly income of the deceased was correctly assessed for compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the fundamental breach of the policy condition regarding the driving licence and its nexus with the cause of the accident. The court also considered the evidence presented by the claimants to uphold the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the insurer was directed to deposit the compensation amount with interest. The original record was to be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal, and the parties were to bear their respective costs.
JUDGMENT
Ravi V. Hosmani, J. - Though this matter is listed for admission, with consent of learned counsel on both sides, it is heard finally
and disposed of by this judgment.
2. "Xxx xxx xxx"
3. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the XVII Additional Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (hereinafter, referred to as 'Claims Tribunal' for brevity) in M.V.C.No.7423/2011 disposed of on 18.06.2012. The challenge is on the aspect of negligence and quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal.
4. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred to in terms of their status before the Tribunal.
5. Brief facts of the case leading to filing of this appeal are that on 04.10.2011 at about 4:30 p.m. when B. Channaveeraiah was riding his TVS Excel bearing registration No. KA-04-X-8654 on the left side, in front of Sonnappanahalli BESCOM Office, NH- 7, Bettahalasuru Cross Service Road, Bengaluru slowly and cautiously by observing traffic rules and regulations, at that time, a Lorry bearing registration No. KA-09/5162 came in a high speed, rash and negligent manner without observing the traffic rules and regulations and suddenly dashed against Channaveeraiah, due to which he fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Columbia Asia Hospital, however he died on the way to the said hospital. The Chikkajala Traffic police registered a case against the driver of the lorry in Crime No.115/2011 for the offences punishable under Section 279, 304(A) of IPC. Contending that they have lost their bread earner, petitioner-claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.
6. In response to the notice, respondent No.1 did not appear and he was placed ex-parte. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company appeared through his counsel and filed written statement and denied the averments made in the claim petition. Further it denied the relationship of the petitioners with the deceased, funeral and obsequies ceremony expenses incurred by the petitioners, cause of accident, age, occupation, income, injuries sustained by the deceased.
7. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Claims Tribuna.
(i) Whether the petitioners prove that on 04.10.2011at about 4.30 p.m. in front of Sonnappanahalli BESCOM Office, NH7, Betthalasuru Cross Service Road, Bengaluru the accident occurred was solely due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.KA-09-5162 and resulting in the death caused to one. B. Channaveeraiah, who is husband as well as father of the petitioners?
(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what amount and from whom?
(iii) What order or award?
8. In support of their claim, claimants examined the wife of the deceased as PW1 and one Ravi, S.D.A., of the BESCOM as PW2 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16. Respondent No.2 has not led any oral evidence but only produced the Insurance Policy.
9. The Claims Tribunal answered issue No.1 in the affirmative. Issue No.2 is answered holding that the petitioners No.1 and 2 are entitled to receive Rs.17,40,400/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the respondents. Issue No.3 is answered as per the final order.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurer submitted that the Driver of the lorry C.M. Prakash had got driving licence bearing No.KA-04- 20020006699 issued on 21.06.2002 by RTO, Yelahanka. It expired on 16.07.2011. The accident occurred on 04.10.2011. It was submitted that though the licence was renewed on 07.10.2011, there was no driving licence as on the date of accident. Hence, as the driver of the lorry was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, the Insurer was absolved of its liability due to breach of terms of the policy. Without prejudice to the above contention, on quantum i
