Back
2024 Supreme(Kar) 97
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
V.SRISHANANDA, J.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Kumari Suprita Achari, D/o. Gajanan Achari – Respondent
Miscellaneous First Appeal No.23827 OF 2012 (MV) C/W Miscellaneous First Appeal No.21188 OF 2013, MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.23828 OF 2012, MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.23826 OF 2012, MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.23829 OF 2012, MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.23830 OF 2012, MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.23831 OF 2012, MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.23832 OF 2012, MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.23833 OF 2012, MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.25578 OF 2012, MFA. CROSS OBJ NO.793 OF 2013, IN MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.23827 OF 2012 (MV)
Decided on : 21-02-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Smt. Preeti Shashank, SRI. LAXMESH P.MATAGUPPI, ADVOCATE, SRI. S.L. MATTI, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent:SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B.HIREMATH, SRI. LAXMESH P.MATAGUPPI, SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE
IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the absence of a valid driving license at the time of the accident can shift the liability from the insurance company to the owner of the vehicle involved.
Headnote:
Ambulance - Motor Accident Claims - NH-7 - 50:50 - 30 days renewal - Driving License
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a road traffic accident on NH-7, where an ambulance and a Maxicab were involved, resulting in injuries to several individuals. The claim petitions were contested, and the Tribunal allowed the claims in part, directing the compensation to be shared by the Insurance Companies of the Ambulance and the Maxicab in a 50:50 ratio.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the driver of the Maxicab contributed to the negligence, and the driver of the ambulance did not possess a valid driving license at the time of the accident. The court also considered the argument that the statute allows 30 days for license renewal, but as there was no evidence of an application being filed within 30 days, the liability was transferred to the owner of the ambulance. The court also awarded enhanced compensation to the claimants in three cases.
Issues: The issues involved contributory negligence, liability of the insurance companies, and the validity of the driving license at the time of the accident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the driver of the Maxicab contributed to the negligence, and the absence of evidence of a timely renewal of the driving license shifted the liability to the owner of the ambulance. The court also considered the principles of law governing the field of awarding suitable compensation.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals filed by the Insurance Company of the Ambulance, set aside 50% of the liability on the Insurance Company of the ambulance, and transferred the liability to the owner of the ambulance. The court also awarded enhanced compensation to the claimants in three cases.
JUDGMENT :
These appeals are directed against the judgment and award passed in MVC Nos.157/2010, 195/2010, 182/2010, 185/2010, 39/2011, 184/2010, 183/2010 and 49/2011 dated 18.04.2011 on the file of Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Honnavar.
2. The following appeals are filed by the Insurance Company of the Ambulance bearing registration No.KA-30/6176 challenging the liability of 50% saddled on the Insurance Company of the Ambulance.
3. Appellant-Insurance Company has also insured Mahindra Maxicab bearing registration No.KA-20/4597.
4. Appeal numbers in MFA Nos.21188/2013, 25578/2012 and MFA Crob No.793/2013 are by the claimants who are injured in the said accident seeking for enhancement of the compensation.
5. Facts of the case in brief for disposal of these appeals are as under:
5.1. In a road traffic accident occurred on 29.05.2010 involving Mahindra Maxicab bearing registration No.KA-20/4597 and Ambulance bearing registration No.KA-30/6176 on NH-7 near Jogimatti, some persons were injured. The injured persons have laid the claim in the aforesaid MVC cases.
6. Claim petitions were contested by filing detail written statements including the non holding effective driving license on the part of the driver of the Ambulance.
7. The Tribunal, on contest, allowed the claim petitions in part as under:
| Sl. No. | MVC No. | Name of Claimant | Amount awarded by Tribunal (in Rs.) |
| 1 | 157/2010 | Tulasi Gouda | 2,77,000/- |
| 2 | 195/2010 | Kumari Suprita Achari | 68,250/- |
| 3 | 182/2010 | Uday Naik and another | 3,90,000/- |
| 4 | 185/2010 | Laxmi Padti | 63,700/- |
| 5 | 39/2011 | Ganapu Gouda | 49,500/- |
| 6 | 184/2010 | Abubakar Bablu | 1,06,000/- |
| 7 | 183/2010 | Isuf Honnikar | 11,215/- |
| 8 | 49/2011 | Amrin Shah | 78,200/- |
8. The compensation amount was directed to be shared the Insurance Company of the Ambulance as well as the Insurance Company of the Mahindra Maxicab which is none other than United India Insurance Company Limited in the ratio of 50:50, though the charge sheet came to be filed against the driver of the Ambulance.
9. The Tribunal assigned proper reasons that though the charge sheet is filed against the driver of the Ambulance, some amount of contributory negligence is also on the part of driver of the Maxicab as a Ambulance is required to move swiftly on the road to save a life and driver of Maxicab should have paved the way for the easy movement of the Ambulance.
10. Smt. Preeti Shashank, learned counsel appearing for Insurance Company of the ambulance however, contended that the driver of the Maxicab did not possess the valid driving license as it got expired on 24.04.2010 and the renewal of the driving licence was taken place on 31.05.2010 and the accident has occurred on 29.05.2010.
11. Therefore, 50% of the liability fastened on to the Insurance Company of the ambulance is to be shifted on the owner of the ambulance bearing No.KA-30/6176 and sought for allowing the appeal.
12. Sri. Laxmesh P. Mataguppi, learned counsel and Sri.T.M.Nadaf and Sri.S.L.Matti, learned counsel in the respective appeals of the claimants sought for enhanced
compensation by contending that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal having regard to the injuries sustained by the claimants is on the lower side.
13. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
14. On such perusal of the material on record, the accidental injuries sustained by the claimants is established by placing oral and documentary evidence on record.
15. Tribunal has appreciated the nature of the injuries and applied the principles of law that governed the field of awarding suitable and adjudged compensation and allowed the claim petition as referred to supra.
16. However, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the oral evidence placed on record by the driver of the ambulance and also taking note of the fact that the Maxicab driver if slowed down for a while, the accident would not have occurred at all and h
