Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 38400
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
MFA No.31255/2013 (MV)
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD.,
BIJAPUR,
NOW REPRESENTED BY:
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD.,
THROUGH THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, N.G.COMPLEX,
OPP: MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA,
GULBARGA.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.SANJAY M JOSHI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SATAPPA S/O DAREPPA PATIL @ BIRADAR
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O TIDAGUNDI
TALUK & DISTRICT BIJAPUR-585101.
2.
SURESH S/O HUNNAPPA JADHAV
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O TARASEWADI,
TQ. & DIST. BIJAPUR-586103.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SANGANAGOUDA V.BIRADAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1
R2 - SERVED )
2
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF M.V.ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL
AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 22.12.2012 IN MVC NO.2028/2010 PASSED BY MOTOR
ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.XII BIJAPUR AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.75,600/- AND SADDLING THE LIABILITY
UPON THE APPELALNT INSURANCE COMPANY AND TO SADDLE
THE SAME ONLY UPON ORIGINAL RESPONDENT NO.1
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ON
11.01.2022,
COMING
ON
FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT
This appeal is by the respondent No.2-Insurance
Company, challenging the impugned judgment and
award by which the Tribunal has directed it to pay
compensation in a sum of Rs.75,600/- to the claimant
together with interest @ 6% p.a.
2.
For the sake of convenience the parties are
referred to by their rank before the Tribunal.
3.
Claimant filed claim petition under Section
166 of M.V.Act, claiming compensation in a sum of
3
Rs.5,50,000/- on account of injuries sustained by him
in a road traffic accident dated 17.09.2010. It is the
case of the claimant that on 17.09.2010 he was
proceeding on bicycle. When he was near Horti bus
stand, a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-28/V-
4877 driven by its rider in a rash or negligent manner
came from his back side and dashed against him. In
the accident he sustained grievous injuries including
fracture of right femur. He took treatment and spent
Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses. He claimed
compensation not only for the injuries sustained by
him but also on the ground that the injuries has
resulted in partial permanent disability affecting his
income.
4.
Respondent No.1-owner of the offending
vehicle remained ex-parte.
4
5.
Respondent
No.2
appeared
and
filed
written statement disputing that the vehicle was
covered by a valid policy issued by it. Respondent
No.2 has taken up specific defence that at the time of
alleged accident, the rider of the offending vehicle was
not holding a valid and effective driving license and
respondent No.1 knowing fully well this fact has
entrusted the vehicle to the rider and thereby violated
the terms and conditions of the policy and as such
respondent No.2 is not liable to pay the compensation.
6.
After framing of the issues, the parties
have
lead
evidence
wherein
the
claimant
has
examined himself as PW.1 and the doctor as PW.2. He
relied upon Exs.P1 to P.11.
7.
On
behalf
of
respondent
No.2-ARTO
examined as RW.1 and Development Officer of
respondent No.2-Insurance Company is examined as
5
RW.2. Ex.R1 is the endorsement issued by the RTO
Bijapur, which states that the rider of the two wheeler
in question was having a driving license to drive LMV
(Non transport) vehicle only.
8.
Considering the evidence of PWs.1 and 2
and documents placed on record, the Tribunal has
come to the conclusion that claimant is entitled for
compensation in a sum of Rs.75,600/- for the
personal injuries sustained by him.
9.
Admittedly,
the
claimant
has
not
challenged the impugned judgment and award so far
as the quantum of compensation is concerned and to
that extent the award has become final.
10.
Even though respondent No.2 has lead
evidence and established the fact that at the time of
accident, the rider of the offending vehicle was not
having a valid and effective driving license to drive a
6
two wheeler, the Tribunal has proceeded to saddle the
liability on respondent No.2 to pay the compensation.
11.
The respondent No.2 Insurance company
has challenged the impugned judgment and award
contending that it is contrary to the provisions of
Section 3 of the M.V. Act which prohibits a person
from driving a motor vehicle in any public place unless
he holds an effective driving license to drive such
vehicle.
12.
It is further contended by respondent No.2
that as per Form No.7 and 8 prescribed with the Motor
Vehicles Act and Rules and as per Rule 17(1) of
M.V.Rules, a motor cycle come in the category of (a)
and (b), whereas light motor vehicle comes in
category (d). This prove the fact that respondent No.1
owner has abrogated the provisions of the Act and
Rule and allowed a person not holding effective driving
7
license to drive the two wheeler and therefore, based
on the fact that the rider was holding a driving license
to drive Light Motor Vehicle (NT), the Tribunal has
erred in directing respondent No.2 to pay the
compensation. In the above facts, the liability should
be saddled only on
