Nandisha vs Smt. Rukmini on 9 April, 2012

[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Nandisha vs Smt. Rukmini on 9 April, 2012

Bench: L.Narayana Swamy

                                     I




    IN THE HIGH CO1. Tf OF KARNATAKA Al' BANGALORL

          DALED 11115 TIlL 9     '       DA\ OF APRIL, 2012

                             ELI ORE
      1111 IIONI3I F MI    JU T'ICF I

    MISC ELIANEOUS FIRS'I APPEAL No 398 OF 2012 MY


BE']WEEN:
NAI\ DISHA,
Sb, SHETI.ThOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/O, SOORNAIIALLY GRAMA
KASABA IIOBLI, HOLENARASIPURA II                     K
HASSAN DIS'IRICT.
                                                         APPELLAL I

(RY SF1 IT N SITSITIflIT4P KFSV'V        &r   ('fl




1   SM1 RI. KMINI
    WIFE OF ASHOK
    \GED A1301 I 32 F ARS
    K Al FIIAFIEKFRF GRAM.
    KASABA HOBI I
    Ifli ENARASIPT K   T3T I K
    IASSY'\ DISI'R1(

     IF '1A\\ Ft
 WI I'll INTERES 1        6   PA. FROM Il-IF DAlE oF PR I I HON HI L
REALIZA HON.

      VEIlS APPEM COMF\G ON FOR ORDERS 11115 DY                               VHF
COT Rf 1)FI IVFRFD IIIF FOl I OWING



                                  JUDGMENT

I'here i' a delay cd 63 days in filing the appeal For the reasons stated in the affidavit filed along with application, delay caused in filing the appeal is condoned.

Accordingly. I A. 1/12 is allow ed, 2 With the consent of learned couns 1 foi both th parties thc appeal is heard for final disposiJ 1 ht appc ii is by the ner challenwn the 1iabi1it ast d in md 1 i t n f n C n tioi dc t rck i ard MCl

--3- covered by the Insurance policy. When the owner of the offending vehicle was in possession ot the valid insurance policy, which covers the nck. the Tribunal should have fastened the liabilit) on the msurance compan

5. Learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that though the owner appeared before the Tribunal, pursuant to the notice. has not produced an docunu nt and no cvldenct has been adduced on his,, behalf. There Is a specific observation made by the Tribunal that the driver was not holding valid clrtiing licence as on thc date of -ict'lcient The police havt registered i casc by filing charge beet igiinst thc drh er rnder eetlon 3 of the Motor 'ehic les Act In the I lreUmstaflcC. the onu-i of the olfei dhig ehit it i'. righib macit liable to pa the "ompensation In upi on of Ills lie C '1 (1 asc 'HA ? 69/2)0 c/v. I lGhl( , dat I 1 '(1 j M a') I'ti'aoi ipli t 'h' ;wif'nt'iit tra id F ::'jc iflit I 4 "After critical evaluation of the material on record and alter perusal ol the written statement and also the charge sheet E'cP2, it is rstal lear that the drier did not possess the valid driving lienc ts on the date of accident and that, he has been prosecuted in the criminal proceedings. Pherefore, the Tribunal has committed a grave error in fastening liability on the insurer, Therefore, we are of the considered view, at any stretch of imagination the said finding of fact cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly. we set aside the sank holding that, the insurer is not liable to satisfy the award amount and fasten the liability on the owner 6 In thc light of the obset ations nack b this Court n the judgment refcrr d ipra n I ri iew of the fact hat 5 H S.Llngaraj, learned counsel is permitted to file Vakalnth within a period of two weeks.

UIB

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court