Karnataka High Court
Icici Lombard Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd vs Anilkumar S/O Gurupadappa Surgond And ... on 17 June, 2022
Author: Rajendra Badamikar
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
MFA No.32745/2013
C/W
MFA No.32743/2013 &
MFA No.32744/2013 (MV)
IN MFA NO.32745/2013:
BETWEEN:
ICICI LOMBARD GEN. INS, CO, LTD.,
NO.89 IIND FLOOR, S.V.R. COMPLEX,
HOSUR MAIN ROAD, MADIWAL,
BANGALORE, NOW REPRSENTED THROUGH
MANAGER LEGAL ICICI LOMBARD
GEN. INS, CO, LTD, IST FLOOR,
KOTHARI COMPLEX, S.V.PATEL CIRCLE,
GULBARGA.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. C.S.KALBURGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAKESH S/O BHIMGOND KICHADI,
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: ELECTRICIAN,
R/O TEACHER'S COLONY,
ASHRAM ROAD, BIJAPUR-586101.
2. MR. PRASHANT S/O SRIKANT PATIL,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: VEHICLE OWNER
R/O PARANDAMMA HOUSE # 2127/17,
2
NEAR CORPORATION BANK,
SAHAKARA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RATHNA SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
APPEAL AGAINST R2 IS DISMISSED V/O. DTD.15.10.2020)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE M.V.ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR
THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 27TH SEPTEMBER-2013 PASSED BY THE MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.XII, BIJAPUR IN MVC
NO.1484/2011 AND TO MODIFY THE COMPENSATION
AWARDED AND TO PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS AS THIS
HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE INCLUDING THE COSTS.
IN MFA NO.32743/2013
BETWEEN:
ICICI LOMBARD GEN. INS, CO, LTD.,
NO.89 IIND FLOOR, S.V.R. COMPLEX,
HOSUR MAIN ROAD, MADIWAL,
BANGALORE, NOW REPRSENTED THROUGH
MANAGER LEGAL ICICI LOMBARD
GEN. INS, CO, LTD, IST FLOOR,
KOTHARI COMPLEX, S.V.PATEL CIRCLE,
GULBARGA.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. C.S.KALBURGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. GEETA @ IRAMMA
W/O KASANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 46 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O C/O V.I. GANGASHETTI,
AISHWARAYA NAGAR, ASHRAM ROAD,
BIJAPUR-586101.
3
2. SHRI. KASANAGOUDA
S/O GURUNNAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: GOVERNMENT SERVANT,
R/O C/O V.I. GANGASHETTI,
AISHWARAYA NAGAR, ASHRAM ROAD,
BIJAPUR-586101.
3. SHRI. DEEPU S/O KASANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O C/O V.I. GANGASHETTI,
AISHWARAYA NAGAR, ASHRAM ROAD,
BIJAPUR-586101.
4. MR. PRASHANT S/O SRIKANT PATIL,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: VEHICLE OWNER,
R/O PARANDAMMA HOUSE # 2127/17,
NEAR CORPORATION BANK,
SAHAKARA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ R.MATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
R4 - SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE M.V.ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR
THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 27TH SEPTEMBER-2013 PASSED BY THE MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.XII, BIJAPUR IN MVC
NO.1095/2011 AND TO MODIFY THE COMPENSATION
AWARDED AND TO PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS AS THIS
HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
IN MFA NO.32744/2013
BETWEEN:
ICICI LOMBARD GEN. INS, CO, LTD.,
NO.89 IIND FLOOR, S.V.R. COMPLEX,
HOSUR MAIN ROAD, MADIWAL,
BANGALORE, NOW REPRSENTED THROUGH
4
MANAGER LEGAL ICICI LOMBARD
GEN. INS, CO, LTD, IST FLOOR,
KOTHARI COMPLEX, S.V.PATEL CIRCLE,
GULBARGA.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. C.S.KALBURGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ANILKUMAR S/O GURUPADAPPA
SURGOND,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: FIELD OFFICER,
IN CADILAR PHRAMACEUTICAL LTD.,
AHMADABAD,
R/O NEAR MALLIKARJUN ASHRAM,
BIJAPUR-586101.
2. MR. PRASHANT S/O SRIKANT PATIL,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: VEHICLE OWNER
R/O PARANDAMMA HOUSE # 2127/17,
NEAR CORPORATION BANK,
SAHAKARA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RATNA N.SHIVAYOGIMATI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 - SERVED.)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE M.V.ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 27TH SEPTEMBER-2013 PASSED BY THE MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.XII, BIJAPUR IN MVC
NO.1483/2011 AND TO MODIFY THE COMPENSATION
AWARDED AND TO PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS AS THIS
HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, INCLUDING THE COSTS.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
5
JUDGMENT
These three appeals are filed by the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company challenging the common judgment and award dated 27.09.2013 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal No.XII, Bijapur ('Tribunal' for short) in MVC Nos. 1095/2011, 1483/2011 and 1484/2011 by partly allowing the claim petitions and granting compensation of Rs.6,93,000/-, Rs.3,15,824/- and Rs.2,19,164/- to the claimants respectively.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred as per the ranks occupied by them before the Tribunal.
3. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are that, on 04.02.2011 one Sri. Babu Patil, along with his friends was travelling in car bearing Registration No. KA.50/M.6620 from Bidarkundi to Bijapur, which was driven by one Sangamesh. When the car being driven half a kilometer away from Bidarkundi cross, the driver 6 of the said car drove it in rash and negligent manner with high speed and as such, he lost control over the vehicle and dashed to a tree situated by the side of the road and caused accident. As a result, Babu Patil, one of inmates of the car sustained grievous injuries all over the body and died on the spot and other inmates of the car have sustained injuries.
4. There is no dispute of the fact that Respondent No.1 is the owner and Respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal has partly allowed all the three claim petitions and awarded compensation as noted above, by fastening the liability on Respondent No.2, who is appellant herein.
5. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and fastening the liability on the insurance company, the insurance company has filed these appeals.
7
6. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company and the learned counsel for respondent/claimants. Perused the records.
7. The main contention raised by the appellant- insurance company is that, the driver of the offending vehicle was holding only LLR and hence, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation, as it cannot be held as a valid driving licence. However, the evidence disclose that the LLR was valid as on the date of the accident. Further, it is also evident from the evidence of RW.2 - RTO that, subsequently the driver was given permanent D.L. and the LLR was not at all cancelled, nor driver was disqualified. When the driver was subsequently given permanent D.L. which continued with LLR, the grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellant now holds no water. Further, this issue is covered by the judgment of this Court reported in ILR 8 2015 KAR 4490 (Smt. Asha Datt vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And Another).
8. The Tribunal has appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and in paragraph Nos.31 to 33, it has elaborately discussed the impact of LLR and conversion of LLR into permanent D.L. Further, it has also come in the evidence that one Veerupakshagouda was also travelling in the vehicle, who was holding D.L.
9. Apart from that, it is also evident that the owner has also filed a claim petition against the insurance company, seeking compensation in respect of damages caused to the vehicle due to the accident. It is evident that the Consumer Forum at Bijapur has allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation to the owner to the tune of Rs.2,28,150/-. It is an admitted fact that the said claim is satisfied by the insurance company. When the insurance company has satisfied the claim of the owner in pursuance of the order of the Consumer Forum, 9 now it is not open for the insurance company to raise the same issue regarding LLR after having accepted the liability.
10. Under such circumstances, looking to the facts and circumstances, the appeals are devoid of any merits. Further, there is no serious dispute regarding the quantum of compensation and claimants have also not sought any enhancement. No grounds are made out for interference with the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Hence, the appeals being devoid of merits stand dismissed.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE KGR/LG