IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR M.F.A.NO.8126 OF 2018(MV-I) BETWEEN NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BENGALURU DIVISION I, SECOND FLOOR, SUBHARAM COMPLEX, M.G.ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001.
BY ITS MANAGER.
(BY SMT.RENUKA H.R, ADVOCATE) AND 1. CHETHANA SURESH GAIKWAD D/O SURESH GAIKWAD AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/O SIR SAI BALAJI P.G KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU ALSO AT NO.B-404, NILEMORE, UMRALE, PALAGHAR, MAHARASTRA.
2. S SHAKTHIVEL S/O SAKKARAI ADULT NO.2/237, MARULKANNAKOTTAI VILLAGE BALAJENGAMANAHALLI POST DHARMAPURI DISTRICT TAMILNADU – 636 705.
…APPELLANT (BY SRI.VASANTHAPPA, ADVOCATE R-2 SERVED) …RESPONDENTS THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JDUGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 16.08.2018, PASSED IN MVC NO. 7543/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XIX ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, (SCCH-23), BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1,63,821/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DEPOSIT OF THE AMOUNT AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 16.08.2018 passed in MVC No.7543/2016 on the file of the XXI Addl. Small Causes Judge and the MACT (SCCH-23) at Bengaluru, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,63,821/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till deposit in favour of Respondent No.1-claimant.
2. By the impugned judgment and award, despite the appellant/Insurance Company specifically contending that the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid or effective driving licence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimant.
3. The main ground on which the appellant- Insurance Company has preferred this appeal is that the Tribunal committed an error in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company without noticing that in the criminal case in C.C.No.11573/2016 filed against the driver of the offending vehicle, the Chargesheet marked as Ex.P10 and the plea of the said driver marked as Ex.P9 wherein he had pleaded guilty of committing the offence of driving without a valid and effective driving licence clearly establishes that the liability could not have been fastened upon the appellant-Insurance Company. In this context, learned counsel for the appellant contends that in the said criminal case, the driver of the offending vehicle pleaded guilty which resulted in his conviction and imposition of fine. Consequently, the Tribunal was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation. It is further contended that the reasonings and findings recorded by the Tribunal at Paragraph 17 of the impugned judgment is wholly erroneous and contrary to the material on record and is liable to be set aside by this Court.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 and claimant would support the impugned judgment and award.
5. I have given my careful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
6. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, the Tribunal committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the appellant-Insurance Company had not proved that the driver did not possess a valid or effective driving licence. The said finding is contrary to the material on record and the same is hereby set aside.
7. However, having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in PAPPU AND OTHERS Vs. VINOD KUMAR LAMBA AND ANOTHER reported in (2018) 3 SCC 208, the ultimate conclusion reached by the Tribunal to hold that the appellant-Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation cannot be found fault with. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in Pappu’s case, this appeal can be disposed of directing the appellant-Insurance Company to pay the compensation in favour of the Respondent No.1- claimant by reserving liberty in favour of the appellant to recover the same from the Respondent No.2-owner of the vehicle.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I pass the following:
ORDER The appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 16.08.2018 passed in MVC No.7543/2016 on the file of the XXI Addl. Small Causes Judge and the MACT (SCCH-23) at Bengaluru, is hereby modified directing the appellant-Insurance Company to pay the compensation to Respondent No.1-claimant by reserving liberty in favour of the appellant to recover the compensation amount from Respondent No.2-owner of the vehicle. Ordered accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE bnv