IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ MFA NO.7595 OF 2014 [MV] BETWEEN SRI. KRISHNA @ KRISHNA KODLEKERE, S/O. DATTATREYA KODLEKERE, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT ‘PARAMOUNT PILATUS’, BLOCK NO.A-7, FLAT NO.303, BDA 80, FEET ROAD, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, AREKERE, BANGALORE-560 076.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI. SRINIVASA D.C., ADVOCATE) AND 1. SRI. NANDISHA, S/O. SRIKANTA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, RESIDING AT C/O. S. KRISHANA, NAGANAHALLI VILLAGE & KASABA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK & DISTRICT-570 018.
2. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, MERGED WITH MANDOVI MOTORS, J.P. NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 045.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.N. SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R1-SERVED) THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.03.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.1657/2019 (OLD MVC NO.86/2008) ON THE FILE OF THE C/C I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MACT, MYSORE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.62,900/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Though this appeal is listed for admission, the same is taken up for final disposal at the consent of both the parties.
This appeal is filed by the Insured – Respondent No.1 in MVC No.1657/2010 on the file of the I Addl. District Judge and MACT, Mysore, challenging the liability fastened on him while awarding a compensation of Rs.62,900/- to the claimant.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.
3. Respondent No.1 herein filed a claim petition seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident which occurred on 20.10.2007, involving TVS Victor bearing registration No.KA-09-EK-3164 and Alto car bearing registration No.KA-03-MB-433. Appellant herein is the owner and driver of the Alto Car. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.62,900/- to the claimant- respondent No.1 with interest at 6% per annum.
4. Since the appellant had not produced the insurance policy and also the driving license, the Tribunal held the Insurance Company not liable to pay the compensation and directed the appellant to pay the compensation.
5. Assailing the aforesaid judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the appellant would contend that in two other cases arising out of the same accident, the Tribunal has held the Insurance Company liable to pay the entire compensation, whereas in the present appeal, contrary to the said finding, the Tribunal has absolved the Insurance Company from paying the compensation and saddled the liability on the appellant – the owner of the vehicle. He would submit that the appellant had a valid driving license and a valid insurance policy at the time of accident.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would justify the findings recorded by the Tribunal thereby holding the appellant herein to pay the compensation. He would contend that unless the appellant produces the Insurance policy and a valid driving license, the Insurer can not be held liable to pay the compensation.
7. The appellant has filed I.A.No.2/2014, seeking to produce the following documents:
(a) Notarized copy of insurance policy No.2231668 valid from 18.06.2007 to 17.06.2008.
(b) Notarized copy of the driving license of the appellant.
(c) Certified copy of the judgment and award passed in MVC No.850/2010 dated 06.11.2012.
(d) Certified copy of the judgment and award passed in MVC No.1196/2010 dated 06.11.2012.
8. On a perusal of the certified copies of the judgment and award passed in MVC Nos.850/2010 and MVC No.1196/2010, both dated 06.11.2012, the same goes to show that the Tribunal held the insurance company liable to pay the compensation. The said cases arise out of the same accident which occurred on 20.10.2007.
9. The appellant has also produced the notarized copy of the driving license and the insurance policy in respect of the offending vehicle, for the relevant period. The same is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent – Insurance Company.
10. For the foregoing reasons, the order passed by the Tribunal directing the appellant-owner to pay the compensation is liable to be set aside.
11. Accordingly, I pass the following :
ORDER The appeal is allowed.
The judgment and award dated 18.03.2013 passed in MVC No.1657/2010 (old MVC No.86/2008) by the Presiding Officer, MACT and I Addl. District Judge, Mysore holding the appellant i.e., Respondent No.1 before the Tribunal to pay the compensation is hereby set aside.
The owner and insurer of the vehicle shall jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
Respondent No.2 – Insurance Company shall deposit the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MVC No.1657/2017 within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The entire amount in deposit before this Court shall be refunded to the appellant.
snc Sd/- JUDGE