The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9304 MFA No. 8197 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8197 OF 2015 (WC) BETWEEN: THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, 401/2F-1, SWASTIK MANANDI ARCADE, S.C.ROAD, OPP SHESHADRIPURAM POLICE STATION BANGALORE - 560 020. THROUGH ITS BENGALURU REGIONAL OFFICE NO. 44/45, RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE 25 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER (BY SRI. S.V.HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE) …APPELLANT Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND: 1. RIZWANA KHANUM W/O LATE MAHABOOB @ MAHABOOB PASHA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 2. MOHAMMED NAWAZ KHAN S/O LATE MAHABOOB @ MAHABOOB PASHA AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS 3. RUKSANA KHANA D/O LATE MAHABOOB @ MAHABOOB PASHA AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS, 4. ABU SUFIYAN KHAN S/O LATE MAHABOOB @ MAHABOOB PASHA AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS, - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9304 MFA No. 8197 of 2015 5. KHURSHEED BEGUM W/O LATE BABU KHAN AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, ALL ARE R/O MUSTHAFA KHAN, LIG-49, KHB COLONY, JAIPURA ROAD, TUMAKURU TOWN - 572 101 THE RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 ARE MINORS AND ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN THE RESPONDENT NO.1 6. MUNIRAJ J
Legal Reasoning
S/O B.A.JAYARAM, MAJOR IN AGE EXCELLENT TRANSPORT, R/O NO. 1/2, SRINIVASA NILAYA GOVER ROAD, COX TOWN BANGALORE - 560 005. …RESPONDENTS (V/O/D 06/01/2023 NOTICE TO R1 HELD SUFFICIENT V/O/D:23/11/2024, MR.LIKITH, ADVOCATE APPOINTED AS AMICUS CUEIAE TO ASSIST THE COURT ON BEHALF OD R1-R5 R6- SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA FILED U/S 30(1) OF W.C. ACT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED:22.07.2015 PASSED IN ECA NO.2/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE 2ND ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, TUMAKURU, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.3,98,800/- FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DEPOSIT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9304 MFA No. 8197 of 2015 ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the award passed in E.C.A.No.2/2015 dated 22.07.2015 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tumakuru, the appellant/Insurance Company is before this Court. 2. The respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein have filed a petition under Section 10 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act for award of compensation along with interest of 12% p.a. from the date of petition till realization, in respect of death of the deceased in the accident. The claimants are the wife, children and mother of the deceased. It is their case that the deceased was working as driver under the 1st respondent therein in his bus since 5 years on monthly salary of an amount of Rs.4500/- and Rs.50/- per day as Batta. On 07.05.2006, the deceased was proceeding in the said vehicle along with paid passengers from Bangalore to Bijapur as per the instructions of the owner of the vehicle. When he reached near Budni Cross at 6:30 a.m., the deceased trying to overtake one vehicle by following rules, at that time one Canter vehicle driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed came from opposite side and dashed both the vehicles and caused the accident. Due to - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9304 MFA No. 8197 of 2015 impact, deceased sustained fatal injuries and also fracture and grievous injuries all over the body and died at the spot and in that regard a case was registered. The claimants who are the family members have come up with the petition seeking compensation. 3. The Tribunal had granted compensation of an amount of Rs.3,98,900/- and the same was questioned by the Insurance Company by filing MFA.No.7839/2009. It is the case of the Insurance Company that the owner of the vehicle has gone before the Consumer Forum and it was argued that the driving license was a fake driving license and the District Forum has upheld the same and that was confirmed by the State Forum. It was questioned by the owner of the vehicle by filing WP.No.13795/2008 before this Court and this Court has confirmed the said orders. In view of the same, it is argued that the driver was holding a fake driving license and as such the Insurance Company has no liability to pay the compensation. Then this Court has remanded the matter back to the trial Court and after remand Additional Issue No.1 was framed and both the parties were permitted to lead evidence on the issue and Ex.P14 - duplicate driving license of deceased and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9304 MFA No. 8197 of 2015 Ex.P15 - identity card issued by the Maxicab Owners and Drivers Association (Regd.,) Tumakuru was produced and the Insurance Company got examined as RW.2 and produced Ex.R3 - Certified Copy of the order in WP.No.13795/2008 and also filed Ex.R2 - Certified Copy of D.L extract. The same authority has issued endorsement Ex.R2 and also Ex.P13 which are contrary to each other. 4. Then the Tribunal has held that it is the burden of the Insurance Company to examine the author of the documents, but Insurance Company has not taken proper steps to secure the witness i.e., Asst. Licensing Authority, Red Hills, Chennai. Ex.P13 reads that the deceased had driving license which was valid from 12.06.2003 to 11.06.2006. The Court gave a finding that the deceased was having a valid driving license as on the date of the accident and the same is fortified by Ex.P14 and no material has been elicited in the evidence to disbelieve these two documents and further the Insurance Company has not placed cogent evidence to establish their contention that the deceased was holding fake license on the date of the accident. Considering all this, the Court had held that the Insurance - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9304 MFA No. 8197 of 2015 Company is liable to pay the compensation and accordingly granted compensation of an amount of Rs.3,98,800/-. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that when Ex.R2 discloses that driving license is a fake driving license, the Court ought to have exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability. It is submitted that in fact they have taken steps to examine the concerned. In spite of the same, they have not appeared before the Court to give the evidence. Learned counsel further submits that it is the burden on the owner of the vehicle to prove the same and he has failed to prove that there is a valid driving license and the Tribunal had wrongly fastened the burden on the Insurance Company. It is submitted that in the light of Ex.R2, the appeal of the Insurance Company has to be allowed. 6. Though notice is served on the respondents, no vakalath is filed and amicus curiae is appointed on behalf of the respondents and the amicus curies has not appeared before the Court. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, perused the entire material on record. It is the contention of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9304 MFA No. 8197 of 2015 the appellant/Insurance Company that in the light of the orders passed by the District Forum and the State Forum which is confirmed by this Court in WP.No.13795/2008 that the driving license of the deceased is a fake driving license. In the earlier round of litigation, when the M.V.C. was allowed and the Insurance Company has filed an appeal before this Court i.e., MFA.No.7839/2009, this Court considering all these contentions has remanded the matter to the Trial Court directing the Trial Court to frame an additional issue in that regard and an additional issue was framed and both the Insurance Company as well as the claimant had adduced the evidence. Ex.R2 and Ex.R3 are issued by Asst. Licensing Authority, Red Hills, Chennai, who has given two endorsements which are contrary to each other. When it is the specific case of the Insurance Company that the deceased was having a fake driving license, the burden lies on the Insurance Company to prove the same. It is the observation of the Court that the Insurance Company had not taken such a stand or any steps to examine the concerned. Considering Ex.P13 and other evidence, the Court has come to the conclusion that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:9304 MFA No. 8197 of 2015 8. This Court having perused the judgment and the documents finds that the Tribunal has rightly observed and rightly held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation and the Insurance Company has failed to discharge their burden and prove that the deceased was having a fake driving license. 9. Accordingly, the appeal of the Insurance Company is dismissed. i. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the trial Court forthwith. ii. 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. iii. No costs. iv. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21