Karnataka High Court
Sri Basappa S/O Gurupadappa Kurali vs Sri Kareppa S/O Yallappa Maradi on 23 August, 2023
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9396
MFA No. 21771 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.21771/2011(MV-D)
BETWEEN:
SRI BASAPPA S/O. GURUPADAPPA KURALI,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KANKANAWADI, TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI BAHUBALI N. KANABARGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI KAREPPA S/O. YALLAPPA MARADI,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: TUKKANATTI, TQ: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. SMT TANGEWWA W/O. KAREPPA MARADI,
Digitally
signed by AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD,
SUJATA R/O: TUKKANATTI, TQ: GOKAK,
SUBHASH
PAMMAR DIST: BELAGAVI.
3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
SHANBHAG CHAMBERS,
KIRLOSKAR ROAD, BELAGAVI.
(INSURER OF TRACTOR NO. MHK-8868,
TRAILER NO.KA-23/TA-2560 AND
POLICY NO.2008/73 VALID FR.28/04/2007
TO 27/04/08).
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.R.MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
APPEAL AGAINST R1 AND R2 STANDS DISMISSED,
VIDE ORDER DATED 01.08.2023.)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9396
MFA No. 21771 of 2011
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.06.2010, PASSED BY
THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T.,
GOKAK, IN M.V.C.NO.1501/2008 AND MATTER TO BE REMANDED, IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
By the impugned judgment and award, the tribunal while awarding compensation to the claimants has fastened liability on the appellant owner of the offending vehicle to pay compensation on the ground that the driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence.
2. The tribunal has given a finding that as on the date of accident, the driver of tractor was not holding driving licence to drive the tractor. Therefore, the tribunal is correct in holding that the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner as he has authorized a person to drive the tractor who was not holding valid and effective driving licence.
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9396 MFA No. 21771 of 2011
3. Therefore, the tribunal is correct in fastening liability on the owner of the tractor and it needs no interference. Therefore, the appeal filed by the owner of the offending vehicle is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
4. The amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to be transmitted to the tribunal.
SD/-
JUDGE MRK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 39 CT-ASC