Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 16724
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J
SHRI. PARASHURAM DEVAPPA HALAGEKAR – Appellant
Versus
SHRI. PEERAJI MALLU GORAL, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. – Respondent
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 22991 OF 2012 (MV-D)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. SANTOSH B. RAWOOT
For the Respondents: SRI. CHANDRAGOUD S. SANGANNAVAAR
The legal principle established concerns joint liability in motor vehicle accident cases in absence of valid insurance evidence.
Headnote:The judgment concerns an appeal filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, regarding a dispute over compensation awarded in MVC No.2713/2007 due to an accident involving an auto rickshaw. The appellant contends he was not the owner of the rickshaw involved in the accident. The court examined the evidence including registration documents and the claim of insurance policy. Issues emerged around the ownership of the vehicle and the legitimacy of the claimed insurance policy coverage. The main issues addressed were the rightful ownership of the auto rickshaw and whether the insurance company bore any liability for the accident. The court highlighted the evidentiary burden on both parties to prove ownership and insurance coverage, leading to a determination of joint liability. The court concluded that the Tribunal's findings were justified considering the absence of a valid insurance policy and the presented evidence. The appeal is allowed in part, modifying the judgment of the Tribunal, adjusting the awarded interest from 9% to 6% on the compensation awarded, maintaining joint liability for payment.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the appellant contested the ownership of the vehicle involved in an accident. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. the accident resulted in compensation claims due to grievous injuries. (Para 4) |
| 3. conflicting claims arose over insurance policy coverage related to the auto rickshaw. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. the court analyzed the burden of proof regarding the insurance policy and vehicle ownership. (Para 8 , 9) |
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)
This appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988, by the appellant/owner of auto rickshaw, being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 29.02.2012, passed in MVC No.2713/2007, on the file of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-IV and MACT, Belgaum (for short, ‘Tribunal’), on the ground that he was not the owner of auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-22/7407 as on the date of accident.
2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that on
08.06.2007 at about 6.45 p.m., after finishing mason work, the claimant was proceeding towards CBT stop at Vaccine Depot, Tilakwadi, Belgaum. At that time, because of rain, he was standing under the tree side by road, at that time, the driver of auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-22/7407 came with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the claimant. Due to which, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. Upon the claim petition filed by the claimants, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.3,81,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and fastened liability on respondent Nos.1 and 3 by exonerating the Insurance Company on the reason that no insurance policy was issued.
4. The learned counsel for appellant/respondent No.3 submitted that as on the date of accident he was not the owner of auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-22/7407, but respondent No.1 is the owner of auto rickshaw. Further submitted that there was insurance policy coverage, hence the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants. Hence, prays for allowing of the appeal.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company submitted that the Insurance Company has not at all issued insurance policy and the appellant and respondent No.1 have not produced any insurance policy of the said auto rickshaw. Therefore, there is no insurance policy of the said auto rickshaw. Hence, prays for dismissal of the appeal.
6. The appellant has taken contention that he was not the owner of auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA- 22/7407. Then on perusal of Ex.R5-Xerox copy of Registration Certificate, which is standing in the name of respondent No.1, is of the year 1997, Ex.P19 is copy of Indemnity Bond, is executed by the appellant before the Trial Court, while getting release of auto rickshaw from the Trial Court in connection with the accident and Ex.P20 is statement of the appellant given before the police stating that he is the owner of auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-22/7407 and Ex.P21 is copy of notice issued by the police to the appellant, mentioning the name of appellant as owner of auto rickshaw, to rebut these documentary evidence, the appellant has not produced any evidence to prove that he was not the owner of auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-22/7407. When there is a rival claim of ownership of not owning the auto rickshaw, then the Tribunal has fastened liability both on the appellant and respondent No.1, on the reason that there is no insurance policy of auto rickshaw.
7. The respondent No.1 has produced a Xerox copy of insurance policy, but it is not marked with specific assertion made by Insurance Company that respondent No.1 not at all issued any insurance policy.
8. In this regard, some persons have made fraud on the Insurance Company and accordingly alleged the complaint before the police that some
