Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 33147 (KAR)

THE MANAGER v. SRI E NAGARAJ

MFA/1647/2016 · 2025-03-24

Lalitha Kanneganti

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12503 MFA No. 1647 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1647 OF 2016 (MV-I) BETWEEN: THE MANAGER, CHOLAMANDALAM M S GIC LTD., UNIT NO.4, GOLDEN HEIGHTS, 6TH FLOOR, 59TH C CROSS, INDUSTRIAL SUBURAB, 4TH MA BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 10. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRADEEP B, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. E. NAGARAJ, S/O ERAPPA, NOW AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O GANIGANAHALLI VILLAGE, MASTI HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101. 2. SRI. R GOPAL, FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN, MAJOR, R/O 2/442, DASANAPURAM VILLAGE, THORAPALLI POST, HOSUR TALUK, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT, TAMILNADU - 635 109. 3. SRI. RAGHAVENDRA S/O VENKATESHAPPA, MAJOR, R/O NO.8, NAGADEVANAHALLI, MASTHI HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR TALUK - 563 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY MS. SUSHMITHA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA N, ADVOCATE FOR R1; Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12503 MFA No. 1647 of 2016 R2 AND R3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.01.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.306/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT MALUR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.5,18,823/- WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS PAYMENT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the award passed in M.V.C. No.306/2014 dated 21.01.2016 by the Senior Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Malur, the Insurance Company is before this Court mainly on the ground of liability. 2. It is stated that the charge sheet is filed under Section 3(1) read with Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which shows that the driver of the offending vehicle is not having a valid driving license to drive the vehicle. In spite of the same, the Tribunal had fixed the liability on the Insurance Company. It is submitted that when the driver is not having the driving license, it is in clear violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. As such, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation and this aspect was not considered by the Tribunal. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12503 MFA No. 1647 of 2016 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant - Insurance Company submits that the claimant is a third party to the insurance and even if the driver of the offending vehicle is not having a valid driving licence still the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation and then recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 4. The owner of the vehicle though served, no vakalath is filed on his behalf. 5. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh and Others1, the principles of pay and recover will apply. In the contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, it is submitted that the interest is granted at 8% p.a., which is on the higher side and it should have been at 6%. Considering the same, the appeal of the Insurance Company is partly allowed by applying the principles of Pay and Recovery. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following: 1 2004 ACJ 1 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12503 MFA No. 1647 of 2016 ORDER i) The appeal is partly allowed. ii) The Insurance Company shall pay the compensation at the first instance then recover the same from the owner of vehicle. iii) The compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. iv) The Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any security. v) The amount in deposit shall be forthwith transferred to the Tribunal. vi) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE KA CT: BHK