Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager, vs Ramaling Pundalik Dhupadal, on 21 December, 2020
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V. Srishananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF DECEMBER 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
M.F.A NO.24313/2011 (MV)
BETWEEN
The Divisional Manager,
Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.,
P.B.No.57, Vikas Complex,
Kirloskar Road,
Shanbag Chambers,
Belgaum,
Rep. through its Regional office,
Sumangala Complex II Floor,
Station Road, Hubli,
Rep. by its Assistant Manager. ...APPELLANT
(By Sri.Nagangouda R.Kuppekur, Adv.)
AND
1. Sri.Ramaling Pundalik Dhupadal,
Age: 23 years,
Occ: Agriculture and Coolie,
R/o.Karikatti, Taluk: Saundatti,
Dist: Belgaum.
2. M/s.Bhaskar Agro Care,
Behind Co-op. Cotton Society
Market (N.C.M), Hubli-580 029,
(Owner of the Tractor-Trailer
No.KA-25-TC-82 (B-275). ...RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.Hanumanth R.Latur, Adv. For R-1,
Sri.Harish S.Maigur, Adv. For R-2)
2
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT, 1988 AGAINST JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
05.07.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.1148/2007 ON THE FILE OF
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE &
MEMBER OF ADDL. M.A.C.T., BAILHONGAL, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.98,600/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE
OF 6% P.A., FROM 17.05.2010 TO THE PETITIONER.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Insurance company is in appeal challenging the validity of the Judgment and Award dated 5th July 2011 passed in MVC No.1148 of 2007 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division)and Additional MACT, Bailahongal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short).
2. Brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of the appeal may be stated as under:
A claim petition came to be filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act contending that on 18.11.2006 at about 8.00 p.m., when Ramaling Pundalik Dhupadal and Madiwalappa S.Ratti were travelling in a tractor-trailer bearing No.CRL-483 and 484 on Belawadi-Bailhongal road near Lingadalli cross, Bailhongal road and when they reached near Lingadalli cross, another tractor-trailer unit bearing No.KA-25/TC-82 (B-275) came in a rash and negligent manner in opposite direction and 3 dashed against the tractor and trailer wherein the aforesaid persons were travelling and they sustained grievous injuries and they were shifted to hospital. They had to spend huge sum of money and lost earning capacity and thus sought for awarding suitable compensation.
3. In response to notice issued by Tribunal, Insurance Company appeared and resisted the claim petitions by denying the claim petition averments in toto in the written statement.
4. Both the claim petitions were tried together by the Tribunal by holding a joint trial and following issues were framed:
1) Whether the petitioners prove that on 18.11.2006 at about 8.00 p.m., on Belawadi-Bailhongalroad, near Lingadalli cross, Bailhongaltaluka, within the limits of Dodwad Police Station, in view of negligent use of a tractor-trailer No.KA-25-TC-82 (B-
275) an accident took place resulting in the injuries to the petitioners?
2) Whether the Respondent No.2 proves that on 18.11.2006 at about 8.00 p.m., on Belawadi-Bailhongal road, near Lingadalli cross, Bailhongaltaluka, within the limits of Dodwad Police Station, in view of negligent use of a tractor-trailer No.CRL 483 and 484 4 an accident took place resulting in the injuries to the petitioners?
3) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, If so, at what extent and from whom?
4) What order?
5. In order to prove the case of the claimants, Ramaling Pundalik Dhupadal was examined as PW1 and doctor who treated him as PW2. 34 documents were relied on which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P1 to P34. On behalf of the Insurance Company, Parashuram Mahadev Bhandari is examined as RW1 and nine documents were relied on by the respondents which were exhibited and marked as Exs.R1 to R9. Tribunal, on cumulative consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, allowed the claim petition in a sum of Rs.98,600/-. It is that judgment which is under challenge in this appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company vehemently contended that Tribunal did not bestow attention to the fact that provisions of Sections 3 and 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act was invoked and driver of the tractor was not having valid driving licence to drive the heavy transport vehicle. He further contended that the driver of the tractor in 5 which the injured was travelling was admittedly not holding a proper licence and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the adjudged compensation in view of the breach of policy conditions and thus, sought for allowing the appeal.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants supported the impugned judgment.
8. In view of the rival contentions, the sole point that would arise for consideration is:
"Whether the finding recorded by the Tribunal that Insurance Company of the tractor and trailer unit bearing No.KA-25- TC-82 (B-275) Insurance Company of the tractor and trailer bearing No.CRL-482 & 484are liable to pay the adjudged compensation in the ratio of 50% each is erroneous?
9. This court answered the above point in the negative for the following reasons:
REASONS
10. In the case on hand, injured Parashuram Mahadev Bhandari sustaining injuries in the road traffic accident that occurred on 18.11.2006 involving tractor and trailer unit bearing No.KA-25-TC-82 (B-275) and the tractor and trailer 6 bearing No.CRL-482 and 484 on Belawadi-Bailhongal road, near Lingadalli cross is not in dispute. It is also found from the records that another claimant Madiwalappa in MVC No.1149/2007 also got injured and both the claimants were treated in the hospital for the injuries sustained by them as is evident from the medical records coupled with the oral testimony of P.W.2-Dr.B.F.Patil.
11. The sole point on which the Insurance Company is assailing the judgment of the Tribunal is that the driver of the tractor and trailer unit was not possessing a valid licence to drive Heavy Transport Vehicle (HTV) and as such, the liability passing on to the Insurance Company is incorrect.
12. The said aspect of the matter is in no longer res integra in view of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in MUKUND DEWANGAN V. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED reported in AIR 2017 SUPREME COURT 3668. The driver of the tractor and trailer bearing No. CRL-482 and 484 was possessing a driving licence though there was no proper endorsement to drive the tractor and trailer. Legal principles enunciated in MUKUND DEWANGAN case, on being applied to the case on hand, the ground urged on behalf of the Insurance Company holds no water. The 7 claimant has not challenged the quantum of compensation and therefore, it has become final.
13. In view of the foregoing discussion, the point is answered and the following order is passed:
ORDER Appeal is meritless and is hereby dismissed.
Amount in deposit is directed to be transmitted to the Tribunal.
Insurance Company is directed to deposit/pay the compensation to the extent of its liability within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE bnv