Full Judgment
-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201461 OF 2022 (MV-D) C/W MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201750 OF 2022 (MV-I), MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201751 OF 2022 (MV-D), MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201752 OF 2022 (MV-I), MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201753 OF 2022 (MV-D), MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201755 OF 2022 (MV-I), MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201756 OF 2022 (MV-I), MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201757 OF 2022 (MV-I), MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201758 OF 2022 (MV-I), MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201759 OF 2022 (MV-I), MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201760 OF 2022 (MV-I), MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201761 OF 2022 (MV-I)
Digitally signed by SUMITRA IN MFA NO.201461/2022:- SHERIGAR Location: HIGH BETWEEN: COURT OF KARNATAKA THE MANAGER LEGAL RELIANCE GEN. INS. CO. LTD., DARBAR SQUARE, 2ND FLOOR, RAM MANDIR ROAD, VIJAYAPURA (NOW REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBLI) …APPELLANT (BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE) -2- AND:
1. BASEER S/O MASTANSAB @ MASTAN @ NABISA HADIMANI, AGE. 27 YEARS, OCC. NIL.
2. KARISHMA D/O MASTANSAB @ MASTAN @ NABISA HADIMANI, AGE. 25 YEARS,
3. RAJESAB S/O DONGRISAB HADIMANI, AGE. 76 YEARS,
4. SHEELADABAI W/O RAJESAB HADIMANI, AGE. 71 YEARS, OCC. H.H.WORK AND COOLIE ALL ARE R/O. CHIKKA-ASANGI, TQ. B.BAGEWADI, NOW RESIDING AT KHAJA AMEEN DARGA, JAIL ROAD VIJAYAPUR-586101.
5. VIJAYAKUMAR S/O SHANKARAPPA, AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. WARD NO.12, MEDAR ONE, ISLAMPUR, GANGAWATI, DIST. KOPPAL-583231.
6. MASTANSAB @ MASTAN @ NABISA S/O RAJESAB HADIMANI, AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. CHIKK-ASANGI, TQ. B.BAGEWADI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586101.
7. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INS. CO. LTD., -3- S.S.FRONT ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-586101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI BABU H. METAGUDDA, ADV. FOR R1 TO R4; SRI SANGANAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADV. FOR R6; SRI S.S. ASPALLI, ADV. FOR R7) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.01.2022 IN MVC NO.1401/2019 PASSED BY THE IVTH ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER MACT-XV VIJAYAPURA, TO THE EXTENT OF 50% OF AWARD MADE LIABLE AND ETC. IN MFA NO.201750/2022:- BETWEEN: THE MANAGER LEGAL RELIANCE GEN. INS. CO. LTD., DARBAR SQUARE, 2ND FLOOR, RAM MANDIR ROAD, VIJAYAPURA (NOW REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBLI) …APPELLANT (BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. NASIR MOHAMMADGOUS NANDYAL,, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS AND CARPENTRY, R/O. PARVATI LAYOUT, SHAVALLI, SOCIETY, PUNE, NOW R/O. AT KHAJA-AMEEN DARGAH JAIL ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-586101. -4-
2. VIJAYAKUMAR S/O SHANKARAPPA, AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. WARD NO.12, MEDAR ONE, ISLAMPUR, GANGAWATI, DIST. KOPPAL-583231.
3. MASTANSAB @ MASTAN @ NABISA S/O RAJESAB HADIMANI, AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. CHIKK-ASANGI, TQ. B.BAGEWADI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586101.
4. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INS. CO. LTD., S.S.FRONT ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-586101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI BABU H. METAGUDDA, ADV. FOR R1; SRI SANGANAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADV. FOR R3; SRI S.S. ASPALLI, ADV. FOR R4) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.01.2022 IN MVC NO.1415/2019 PASSED BY THE IVTH ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER MACT-XV VIJAYAPURA AND ETC. IN MFA NO.201751/2022:- BETWEEN: THE MANAGER LEGAL RELIANCE GEN. INS. CO. LTD., DARBAR SQUARE, 2ND FLOOR, RAM MANDIR ROAD, VIJAYAPURA (NOW REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBLI) …APPELLANT (BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE) -5- AND:
1. BASEER S/O MASTANSAB @ MASTAN @ NABISA HADIMANI, AGE. 27 YEARS, OCC. NIL.
2. KARISHMA D/O MASTANSAB @ MASTAN @ NABISA HADIMANI, AGE. 25 YEARS,
3. RAJESAB S/O DONGRISAB HADIMANI, AGE. 76 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
4. SHEELADABAI W/O RAJESAB HADIMANI, AGE. 71 YEARS, OCC. H.H.WORK AND COOLIE ALL ARE R/O. CHIKKA-ASANGI, TQ. B.BAGEWADI, NOW RESIDING AT KHAJA AMEEN DARGA, JAIL ROAD VIJAYAPUR-586101.
5. VIJAYAKUMAR S/O SHANKARAPPA, AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. WARD NO.12, MEDAR ONE, ISLAMPUR, GANGAWATI, DIST. KOPPAL-583231.
6. MASTANSAB @ MASTAN @ NABISA S/O RAJESAB HADIMANI, AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. CHIKK-ASANGI, TQ. B.BAGEWADI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586101. -6-
7. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INS. CO. LTD., S.S.FRONT ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-586101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI BABU H. METAGUDDA, ADV. FOR R1 TO R4; SRI SANGANAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADV. FOR R6; SRI S.S. ASPALLI, ADV. FOR R7) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.01.2022 IN MVC NO.1402/2019 PASSED BY THE IVTH ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER MACT-XV VIJAYAPURA, AND ETC. IN MFA NO.201752/2022:- BETWEEN: THE MANAGER LEGAL RELIANCE GEN. INS. CO. LTD., DARBAR SQUARE, 2ND FLOOR, RAM MANDIR ROAD, VIJAYAPURA (NOW REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBLI) …APPELLANT (BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. KARISHMA D/O MASTANSAB @ MASTAN @ NABISA HADIMANI, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. CHIKKA-ASANGI, BASAVANA BAGEWADI TQ. NOW R/O. AT KHAJA-AMEEN DARGAH JAIL ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-586101. -7-
2. VIJAYAKUMAR S/O SHANKARAPPA, AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. WARD NO.12, MEDAR ONE, ISLAMPUR, GANGAWATI, DIST. KOPPAL-583231.
3. MASTANSAB @ MASTAN @ NABISA S/O RAJESAB HADIMANI, AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. CHIKK-ASANGI, TQ. B.BAGEWADI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586101.
4. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INS. CO. LTD., S.S.FRONT ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-586101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI BABU H. METAGUDDA, ADV. FOR R1; SRI SANGANAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADV. FOR R3; SRI S.S. ASPALLI, ADV. FOR R4) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO
CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.01.2022 IN MVC NO.1408/2019 PASSED BY THE IVTH ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER MACT-XV VIJAYAPURA AND ETC. -8- IN MFA NO.201753/2022:- BETWEEN: THE MANAGER LEGAL RELIANCE GEN. INS. CO. LTD., DARBAR SQUARE, 2ND FLOOR, RAM MANDIR ROAD, VIJAYAPURA (NOW REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBLI) …APPELLANT (BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. RAJ MOHAMMAD S/O HASAN MUJAWAR, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. CHIKKA-ASANGI, BASAVANA BAGEWADI TQ. NOW R/O. AT KHAJA-AMEEN DARGAH JAIL ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-586101.
2. ASIF S/O HASAN MUJAWAR, AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. CHIKKA-ASANGI, TQ: BASAVANA BAGEWADI NOW R/O. AT KHAJA-AMEEN DARGAH JAIL ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-586101.
3. VIJAYAKUMAR S/O SHANKARAPPA, AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. WARD NO.12, MEDAR ONE, ISLAMPUR, GANGAWATI, DIST. KOPPAL-583231.
4. MASTANSAB @ MASTAN @ NABISA S/O RAJESAB HADIMANI, AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. CHIKK-ASANGI, TQ. B.BAGEWADI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586101. -9-
5. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INS. CO. LTD., S.S.FRONT ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-586101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI BABU H. METAGUDDA, ADV. FOR R1 AND R2; SRI SANGANAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADV. FOR R4; SRI S.S. ASPALLI, ADV. FOR R5) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.01.2022 IN MVC NO.1409/2019 PASSED BY THE IVTH ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER MACT-XV VIJAYAPURA TO THE EXTENT OF 50% OF AWARD MADE LIABLE AND ETC. IN MFA NO.201755/2022:- BETWEEN: THE MANAGER LEGAL RELIANCE GEN. INS. CO. LTD., DARBAR SQUARE, 2ND FLOOR, RAM MANDIR ROAD, VIJAYAPURA (NOW REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBLI) …APPELLANT (BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SHEELADABAI @ SHEELDABI
W/O RAJESAB HADIMANI, AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK AND COOLIE, R/O. CHIKKA-ASANGI, TQ. BASAVANA BAGEWADI NOW R/O. AT KHAJA-AMEEN DARGAH JAIL ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-586101. - 10 -
2. VIJAYAKUMAR S/O SHANKARAPPA, AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. WARD NO.12, MEDAR ONE, ISLAMPUR, GANGAWATI, DIST. KOPPAL-583231.
3. MASTANSAB @ MASTAN @ NABISA S/O RAJESAB HADIMANI, AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. CHIKK-ASANGI, TQ. B.BAGEWADI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586101.
4. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INS. CO. LTD., S.S.FRONT ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-586101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI BABU H. METAGUDDA, ADV. FOR R1; SRI SANGANAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADV. FOR R3; SRI S.S. ASPALLI, ADV. FOR R4) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.01.2022 IN MVC NO.1410/2019 PASSED BY THE IVTH ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER MACT-XV VIJAYAPURA AND ETC. IN MFA NO.201756/2022:- BETWEEN: THE MANAGER LEGAL RELIANCE GEN. INS. CO. LTD., DARBAR SQUARE, 2ND FLOOR, RAM MANDIR ROAD, VIJAYAPURA (NOW REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBLI) …APPELLANT (BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE) - 11 - AND:
1. MOHAMMADGOUS @ MOHAMMAD GOUSE
S/O NASIR NANDYAL, AGE: 13 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS M/G. FATHER NASIR MOHAMMADGOUS NANDYAL, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS AND CARPENTRY, R/O. PARVATI LAYOUT, SHAVALI SOCIETY, PUNE, NOW R/O. KHAJA-AMEEN DARGAH JAIL ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-586101.
2. VIJAYAKUMAR S/O SHANKARAPPA, AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. WARD NO.12, MEDAR ONE, ISLAMPUR, GANGAWATI, DIST. KOPPAL-583231.
3. MASTANSAB @ MASTAN @ NABISA S/O RAJESAB HADIMANI, AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. CHIKK-ASANGI, TQ. B.BAGEWADI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586101.
4. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INS. CO. LTD., S.S.FRONT ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-586101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI BABU H. METAGUDDA, ADV. FOR R1; SRI SANGANAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADV. FOR R3; SRI S.S. ASPALLI, ADV. FOR R4) - 12 - THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.01.2022 IN MVC
NO.1411/2019 PASSED BY THE IVTH ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER MACT-XV VIJAYAPURA AND ETC. IN MFA NO.201757/2022:- BETWEEN: THE MANAGER LEGAL RELIANCE GEN. INS. CO. LTD., DARBAR SQUARE, 2ND FLOOR, RAM MANDIR ROAD, VIJAYAPURA (NOW REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBLI) …APPELLANT (BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. RAJ MOHAMMAD S/O HASAN MUJAWAR, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. CHIKKA-ASANGI, TQ. BASAVANA BAGEWADI NOW R/O. AT KHAJA-AMEEN DARGAH JAIL ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-586101.
2. VIJAYAKUMAR S/O SHANKARAPPA, AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. WARD NO.12, MEDAR ONE, ISLAMPUR, GANGAWATI, DIST. KOPPAL-583231. - 13 -
3. MASTANSAB @ MASTAN @ NABISA S/O RAJESAB HADIMANI, AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. CHIKK-ASANGI, TQ. B.BAGEWADI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586101.
4. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INS. CO. LTD., S.S.FRONT ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-586101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI BABU H. METAGUDDA, ADV. FOR R1; SRI SANGANAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADV. FOR R3; SRI S.S. ASPALLI, ADV. FOR R4) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.01.2022 IN MVC NO.1412/2019 PASSED BY THE IVTH ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER MACT-XV VIJAYAPURA AND ETC. IN MFA NO.201758/2022:- BETWEEN: THE MANAGER LEGAL RELIANCE GEN. INS. CO. LTD., DARBAR SQUARE, 2ND FLOOR, RAM MANDIR ROAD, VIJAYAPURA (NOW REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBLI) …APPELLANT (BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE) - 14 - AND:
1. MUSKAN D/O MAKTUMHUSEN NANDYAL @ NANDYAL
AGE: 16 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER M/G. FATHER MAKTUMHUSEN NANDYAL @ NANDYAL, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O. PARVATI PAYATHA, DANDEKAR POOL, PUNE, NOW R/O. AT KHAJA-AMEEN DARGAH JAIL ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-586101.
2. VIJAYAKUMAR S/O SHANKARAPPA, AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. WARD NO.12, MEDAR ONE, ISLAMPUR, GANGAWATI, DIST. KOPPAL-583231.
3. MASTANSAB @ MASTAN @ NABISA S/O RAJESAB HADIMANI, AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. CHIKK-ASANGI, TQ. B.BAGEWADI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586101.
4. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INS. CO. LTD., S.S.FRONT ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-586101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI BABU H. METAGUDDA, ADV. FOR R1; SRI SANGANAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADV. FOR R3; SRI S.S. ASPALLI, ADV. FOR R4) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.01.2022 IN MVC NO.1413/2019 PASSED BY THE IVTH ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER MACT-XV VIJAYAPURA AND ETC. - 15 - IN MFA NO.201759/2022:- BETWEEN: THE MANAGER LEGAL RELIANCE GEN. INS. CO. LTD., DARBAR SQUARE, 2ND FLOOR, RAM MANDIR ROAD, VIJAYAPURA (NOW REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBLI) …APPELLANT (BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. GAFUR MAKTUMHUSEN NANDYAL @ NANDYAL,
AGE: 18 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, SINCE MINOR R/BY FATHER MAKTUM HUSAIN NANDYAL, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSIENSS R/O: PARVATI PAYATHA, DANDEKAR POOL PUNE, NOW R/O: AT KHAJA-AMEEN KARGAH, JAIL ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-586101.
2. VIJAYAKUMAR S/O SHANKARAPPA, AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. WARD NO.12, MEDAR ONE, ISLAMPUR, GANGAWATI, DIST. KOPPAL-583231.
3. MASTANSAB @ MASTAN @ NABISA S/O RAJESAB HADIMANI, AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. CHIKK-ASANGI, TQ. B.BAGEWADI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586101. - 16 -
4. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INS. CO. LTD., S.S.FRONT ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-586101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI BABU H. METAGUDDA, ADV. FOR R1; SRI SANGANAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADV. FOR R3; SRI S.S. ASPALLI, ADV. FOR R4) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.01.2022 IN MVC NO.1414/2019 PASSED BY THE IVTH ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER MACT-XV VIJAYAPURA AND ETC. IN MFA NO.201760/2022:- BETWEEN: THE MANAGER LEGAL RELIANCE GEN. INS. CO. LTD., DARBAR SQUARE, 2ND FLOOR, RAM MANDIR ROAD, VIJAYAPURA (NOW REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBLI) …APPELLANT (BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. MASTANSAB @ MASTAN @ NABISA
S/O RAJESAB HADIMANI, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. CHIKKA-ASANGI, TQ: BASAVANA-BAGEWADI, NOW R/O: AT KHAJA-AMEEN KARGAH, JAIL ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-586101. - 17 -
2. VIJAYAKUMAR S/O SHANKARAPPA, AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. WARD NO.12, MEDAR ONE, ISLAMPUR, GANGAWATI, DIST. KOPPAL-583231.
3. MASTANSAB @ MASTAN @ NABISA S/O RAJESAB HADIMANI, AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. CHIKK-ASANGI, TQ. B.BAGEWADI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586101.
4. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INS. CO. LTD., S.S.FRONT ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-586101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI BABU H. METAGUDDA, ADV. FOR R1; SRI SANGANAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADV. FOR R3; SRI S.S. ASPALLI, ADV. FOR R4) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.01.2022 IN MVC
NO.1417/2019 PASSED BY THE IVTH ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER MACT-XV VIJAYAPURA AND ETC. IN MFA NO.201761/2022:- BETWEEN: THE MANAGER LEGAL RELIANCE GEN. INS. CO. LTD., DARBAR SQUARE, 2ND FLOOR, RAM MANDIR ROAD, VIJAYAPURA (NOW REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBLI) …APPELLANT (BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE) - 18 - AND:
1. MASTANSAB @ MASTAN @ NABISA S/O RAJESAB HADIMANI, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. CHIKKA-ASANGI, TQ: BASAVANA-BAGEWADI, NOW R/O: AT KHAJA-AMEEN KARGAH, JAIL ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-586101.
2. VIJAYAKUMAR S/O SHANKARAPPA, AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. WARD NO.12, MEDAR ONE, ISLAMPUR, GANGAWATI, DIST. KOPPAL-583231.
3. MASTANSAB @ MASTAN @ NABISA S/O RAJESAB HADIMANI, AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. CHIKK-ASANGI, TQ. B.BAGEWADI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586101.
4. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INS. CO. LTD., S.S.FRONT ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-586101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI BABU H. METAGUDDA, ADV. FOR R1; SRI SANGANAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADV. FOR R3; SRI S.S. ASPALLI, ADV. FOR R4) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.01.2022 IN MVC NO.1416/2019 PASSED BY THE IVTH ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER MACT-XV VIJAYAPURA AND ETC. - 19 - THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)
1. These appeals are by the insurer challenging the compensation awarded to the victims of an accident which occurred on 14.11.2018 between a Cruiser Jeep and a Tata Canter Lorry.
2. The claimants were the inmates of the Cruiser Jeep and the Tribunal has awarded varying sums to the claimants.
3. It is the principal contention of the insurer the
Tribunal has found that both the driver of the Cruiser Jeep and Tata Canter Lorry were responsible for the accident in equal proportion and has made both of them liable for the compensation in the ratio of 50:50. - 20 -
4. The insurer of the Cruiser Jeep has accepted its liability and it is stated that the compensation that it was liable to pay has already been paid.
5. The present batch of appeals is by the insurer of the
Tata Canter Lorry. It is contended by the insurer that the Tata Canter Lorry had been temporarily registered and during that period the accident occurred. It is contended that during the period of temporary registration, the vehicle could not be used for transporting goods and since the goods were being transported during that period, they would not be liable.
6. Learned counsel for the insurer also seeks to contend that there was a violation of the permit conditions and therefore the insurer would not be liable.
7. At the outset, it is to be stated here that the mere
fact that a vehicle had been temporarily registered would not bar the use of the vehicle. The purposes for having a - 21 - Temporary Registration is only to ensure that the registering authority has a record of the vehicles.
8. Section 43 of the Motor Vehicle Act deals with
Temporary Registration and mandates that the owner of a motor vehicle can apply to any registering authority to have the vehicle temporary registered in the prescribed manner and obtain a temporary certificate of registration. Section 43 does not bar the use of a vehicle when it is temporarily registered. It is no doubt true that the temporary registration is valid only for a period of one month, but that would not mean that the vehicle cannot be used for the purpose for which it is bought within the period of one month.
9. The policy that has been issued by the insurer also
does not stipulate that the vehicle cannot be used to transport goods during the period during which the vehicle was temporarily registered. It may be pertinent to state here that the insurer had collected the insurance premium - 22 - for the entire year, knowing fully well that the vehicle had not been permanently registered. In other words, the insurer was distinctly aware that the vehicle was new and had been temporarily registered, and yet it collected the premium for the entire year. If the insurer collects the premium for the entire year, it presupposes that it was covering the risk of the use of the motor vehicle for the entire year and not only for the period during which the vehicle had been permanently registered. In this view of the matter, the argument of the insurer cannot be accepted.
10. The second argument, that there is a violation of
permit conditions cannot also be considered since the averment in this regard was a general denial. The insurer before the tribunal took up a general defence in the following form. “This Respondent cannot be held liable for payment of any compensation unless and until it is proved that the Registration Certificate, - 23 -
Fitness Certificate, Permit and driving license of the driver to drive particular type of the vehicle involved in the alleged accident were valid and effective at the time and on the date of the alleged accident. Further liability, if there is any, of this Respondent, will be subject to the provisions of the M.V Act, 1988 and the rules framed there under, subject to the terms, the conditions, the exceptions and the limitations as to use enumerated in the policy of Insurance, if there is any issued to the owner of the vehicle and also subject to section 64 VB of the insurance act, 1938. Further this Respondent submits that Respondent No.1 has violated condition No.1 of the policy if issued to Respondent No.1 as he has not complied the condition No. 1 of the policy”.
11. As could be seen from the above, the insurer did not
deny the fact that there was a permit nor did it take up the contention that there was a violation of the permit conditions. It merely took an ambivalent stand that unless it was proved that the vehicle had a registration - 24 - certificate, a fitness certificate, a permit and the driver possessed driving license, it would not be liable. Such kind of general defence would not tantamount to the insurer contending that there was no permit or that there was a violation of the permit conditions. If the insurer were to contend that a particular term of the permit was violated, it ought to have categorically stated as to what was the term of the permit which was being violated. A mere general allegation that the claimants had to prove that the vehicle possessed a permit would not suffice.
12. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in the appeals of the insurer as regards liability.
13. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the
appellant, that the sums awarded by the Tribunal are excessive. At this stage, learned counsel for the claimants, submit that three appeals have been filed seeking for enhancement and the same are pending before the Division Bench. - 25 -
14. In my view, on a perusal of the amounts awarded, the argument that excessive sums were awarded to the claimants cannot be accepted.
15. Thus, without prejudice to the right of the claimants
to seek for enhancement in the appeals filed by them, the appeals insofar as it relates to quantum of compensation filed by the insurer on the premise that it is excessive also has no merit and are dismissed. The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. Sd/- (N.S.SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE MSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17 CT/VD