IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN M.F.A. No.4263/2009 (MV) Between :
The Asst. Manager The Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., Regional Office, Leo shopping Complex, No.44/45 Residency Road, Bangalore-560025. …Appellant (By M. U. Poonacha, Advocate) And :
1. Smt. Sarojamma W/o. D. Hanumantharayappa, Aged about 52 years.
2. G. H. Naveen S/o. D. Hanumantharayappa, Aged about 26 years.
Both are R/at 3rd Cross, 3rd Main, Anandagiri Extension, Near Nanjundeshwara Tent, Hebbala, Bangalore-560024.
3. Mohana Reddy S/o. Siddareddy, Major, R/at Motappa Complex, Mangammanapalya Hosur Road, Bangalore.
4. Govinda Reddy S/o. Ramaiah, Major, R/at No.58/4, 3rd Cross, 7th Main, Syndicate Bank Colony, 3rd Stage, Banashankari, Bangalore. …Respondents (By Sri R. Chandrashekar, Advocate for R-1 & R-2; Vide order dated 27.11.2013 service of Notice on R-3 is held sufficient; R-4 served and unrepresented) This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicle Act, against the judgment and award dated 05.01.2009 passed in MVC No.4233/2007 on the file of the XIV Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT, Metropolitian area, Bangalore, (SCCH.No.10), awarding a compensation of Rs.3,52,960/- with interest @ 6% P.A. from the date of petition till deposit.
This MFA is coming on for final disposal this day, the Court delivered the following :
JUDGMENT The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., the appellant, has challenged the legal validity of the award dated 5.1.2009, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, in MVC.No.4233/2007, whereby, for the death of D. Hanumantharayappa, the learned Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.3,52,960/-, along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition, till the date of depositing the said amount.
2. The Insurance Company has challenged the impugned award inter alia on the ground that although the driver was holding a valid LMV driving licence, but since he was driving a transport vehicle, the driving licence was also required to have an express endorsement for driving a transport vehicle. Since the driving licence did not have the express endorsement, the driver cannot be said to have a duly valid driving licence. Therefore, the Insurance Company could not be saddled with the liability of having to pay the compensation amount.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants-respondents 1 and 2, has relied on the case of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited [AIR 2017 SUPREME COURT 3668], and has contended that, according to the Apex Court, in case the driver of the offending vehicle has a valid LMV licence, even if he was driving a transport vehicle, even then a specific endorsement is not required in the driving licence. Therefore, the Insurance Company cannot absolve itself of the liability to pay the compensation amount. In the present case, the driver did have a valid LMV driving licence. Therefore, the learned counsel has supported the impugned award.
4. The issue whether the driver of an offending vehicle having a valid LMV driving licence is required to have a specific endorsement, authorizing him to drive a transport vehicle or not, is no longer res integra in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra). In the said case, the Apex Court has clearly opined that if a driver has a driving license for LMV, there is no requirement of law for the driving license to carry any specific endorsement licensing the driver to drive a transport vehicle.
5. Admittedly, in the present case, the driver of the offending vehicle did have a valid driving license to drive a LMV (a non-transport vehicle). Therefore, there is no requirement that the driving license should have a further endorsement permitting the driver to drive a transport vehicle. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is clearly unacceptable.
For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the present appeal. It is hereby dismissed.
The amount deposited before this Court, if any, shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal for disbursement.
Sd/- JUDGE *bk/-