MFA NO.102702/2014 (MV) C/w. MFA No.102703/2014 : 1 :

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 23 RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

MFA NO.102702/2014 (MV) C/w. MFA No.102703/2014

IN MFA NO 102702 OF 2014

BETWEEN

BHARAMA S/O MALOJI PATIL, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: , TQ & DIST: ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI.GURUKUMAR V.A., ADVOCATE)

AND

1. SMT.RAJASHREE W/O RAJENDRA NAVALEKAR, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: NILL, R/O: GODAGERI, TQ: , DIST:BELGAUM.

2. MASTER HARISH S/O RAJENDRA NAVALEKAR, AGE: 06 YEARS, OCC: NILL, R/O: GODAGERI, TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELGAUM. (SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER I.E., PETITIONER NO.1)

3. SMT. AMBAKKA W/O SHANKAR NAVALEKAR, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: NILL, R/O: GODAGERI, TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELGAUM.

MFA NO.102702/2014 (MV) C/w. MFA No.102703/2014 : 2 :

4. SHRI SHANKAR S/O SAKARAM NAVALEKAR, AGE 56 YEARS, OCC: NILL, R/O: GODAGERI, TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELGAUM.

5. THE GENERAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD., MARUTI GALLI, BELGAUM.

6. MR. BALAPPA PARASHARAM PEDNEKAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: , TQ: HALIYAL, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.

7. THE GENERAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., RAMDEV GALLI, BELGAUM. ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.SANJAY S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; R2 IS MINOR REP. BY R1; SHRI S.S. KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R5; R6 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, AGAINST JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.07.2014, PASSED IN MVC.NO.579/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KHANAPUR, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.3,69,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION.

IN MFA NO 102703 OF 2014:

BETWEEN

BHARAMA S/O MALOJI PATIL, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: DESUR, TQ & DIST: BELGAUM. ... APPELLANT

MFA NO.102702/2014 (MV) C/w. MFA No.102703/2014 : 3 :

(BY SRI.GURUKUMAR V.A., ADVOCATE)

AND

1. SMT. RAJASHREE W/O RAJENDRA NAVALEKAR, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: NILL, R/O: GODAGERI, TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELGAUM.

2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., MARUTI GALLI, BELGAUM.

3. MR.BALAPPA PARASHARAM PEDNEKAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: KERWAD, TQ: HALIYAL, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.

4. THE GENERAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., RAMDEV GALLI, BELGAUM. ... RESPONDENTS

(By Sri.SANJAY S KATAGERI FOR R1; SHRI S.S. KOLIWAF, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R3 IS SERVED BUT UNREPREESENTED; SHRI SHASHANK S.HEGDE FOR SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, AGAINST JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.07.2014, PASSED IN MVC.NO.582/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KHANAPUR, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.50,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION.

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

MFA NO.102702/2014 (MV) C/w. MFA No.102703/2014 : 4 :

JUDGMENT

1. The above appeals have been filed by the Owner of

the vehicle involved in the accident, the subject

matter of the proceedings in MVC Nos.579/2013 and

582/2013.

2. The nature and occurrence of the accident, coverage

of the insurance policy are not in dispute. Hence, the

facts leading up to the accident and thereafter are

therefore not required to be adverted to.

3. By way of the aforesaid judgment, the tribunal had

imposed the entire liability on the owner of the vehicle

on the ground that the driver of the vehicle did not

possess a licence to drive the vehicle in question. In

regard to this the tribunal has considered Ex.R1 being

the charge sheet filed under Sections 279 and 304 of

the IPC read with Section 3 along with 181 of the M.V.

Act, to hold that since the charge sheet was laid under

Section 3 of the M.V. Act and there was no valid

driving licence and in this regard, the tribunal held MFA NO.102702/2014 (MV) C/w. MFA No.102703/2014 : 5 :

that there was no evidence, which was laid to rebut

the allegation, by the owner entering into the witness

box and as such imposed the entire liability on the

owner of the vehicle absolving the insurance company

of the same.

4. Shri Gurukumar V.A., learned counsel for the

appellant – owner of the vehicle would submit that it

is only by inadvertence that the said evidence could

not be laid before the Court, the driver of the vehicle

has arrayed in the charge sheet namely Pundalik Pote,

was the driver of the vehicle and as such has filed

I.A.No.2/2014 for production of additional documents,

namely notarized copy of the driving licence. The

original of the driving licence has also been made

available today for inspection and has been provided

for inspection to the learned counsel for the Insurance

Company Shri S.S.Koliwad as also to Shri Sanjay S.

Katageri, learned counsel for the claimant. On

examination of the said original licence with the photo MFA NO.102702/2014 (MV) C/w. MFA No.102703/2014 : 6 :

copy produced along with I.A.No.2/2014, it is found

that the same matches with the original today

produced. Hence, after such examination, the original

has been returned to Shri Gurukumar V.A. learned

counsel for the owner of the vehicle.

5. Considering the averments made in support of

I.A.No.2/2014, the said application not having been

objected to is allowed. The additional documents are

taken on record.

6. A perusal of the said licence produced now indicates

that it has been issued on 13.12.1983 valid till

11.08.2017 in the name of Pundalik Pote, bears DL

No.MH10 1983 00007079. The coverage under the

licence is shown to be “TRANS”, in the backside of the

licence at Sl.No.8 it indicates that “TRANS” stands for

“Transport”. In view of the same, I am of the

considered opinion that the licence which has

produced today is that of Pundlik Pote authorizing him

to drive transport vehicles from 13.12.1983 till MFA NO.102702/2014 (MV) C/w. MFA No.102703/2014 : 7 :

11.08.2017. In view of the same, the finding of the

tribunal is required to be set aside by considering the

additional document produced today.

7. The liability imposed on the owner is therefore

transferred to the Insurance Company i.e., United

India Insurance Co. Ltd., - respondent No.5 in MFA

No.102702/2014 and respondent No.2 in MFA

NO.102703/2014.

8. Both appeals are therefore allowed.

9. The amount in deposit along with accrued interest, if

any, shall be refunded to the appellant in both the

appeals.

Sd/- JUDGE Vnp*