IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.614 OF 2014 [MV] BETWEEN BAJAJ ALLIANCE INS. CO. LTD., GROUND FLOOR, NO.31, TBR TOWERS, I CROSS, NEW MISSION ROAD, NEXT TO BANGALORE STOCK EXCHANGE, J.C. ROAD,BANGALORE.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 4TH FLOOR, GARDEN HOUSE NO.1/2, 59TH “C” CROSS, 4TH M-BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010. ... APPELLANT [BY SRI. P.B.RAJU, ADVOCATE] AND 1. GANGAHANUMAIAH, S/O. HANUMAIAH, AGED 42 YEARS, SULUKUNTE PALYA, TIGALARA PALYA, KULAVNAHALLI POST, THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI, NEELAMANGLA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
2. GANGARAJU, S/O. GANGARAMAIAH, 74, LAKKENEHALLI, BYAMAGONDLU HOBLI, NEELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS [BY SRI. P.SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1. R2-SERVED] * * * THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.11.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.6064/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ACMM & XXIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE MACT., COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.2,17,850/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. [AMOUNT OF RS.15,000/- AWARDED TOWARDS FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES DOES NOT CARRY ANY INTEREST] FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, challenging the Judgment and Award passed by the MACT., and Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru in MVC No.6064/2011, wherein a total compensation of Rs.2,17,850/- has been awarded to respondent No.1 herein for the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 18.08.2011 at about 11.30 a.m. when respondent No.1/claimant was traveling in an autorickshaw bearing reg. No.KA-52/5993 and when the said autorickshaw reached in front of Yadehalli Kamat Hotel, Sompura Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the said autorickshaw, the autorickshaw turtled. Due to the same, the claimant sustained injuries and he was shifted to Tumkur Government Hospital, wherein he took treatment as an in- patient.
The Tribunal after considering the evidence and material on record awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,17,850/- along with interest at 6% p.a. [excluding interest on Rs.15,000/- awarded towards future medical expenses].
4. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the vehicle involved is a three wheeler autorickshaw and the driver of the said vehicle was holding a driving licence to drive a non-transport vehicle and since the said vehicle is a transport vehicle, the Tribunal was not proper in fastening the liability on the appellant/insurer. It is further contended that the autorickshaw had the seating capacity for only 3 persons. However, more than 3 persons were traveling in the said autorickshaw when the accident took place and therefore, there is a violation of conditions of the policy and the insurer is not liable to pay compensation.
5. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/claimant by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2017)14 Supreme Court Cases 663 contends that no separate endorsement is required for the driver of the offending vehicle to drive a transport vehicle since the driver was having a driving licence to drive LMV [NT], it cannot be said that there is violation of the policy conditions. He further contends that the insurer has failed to establish that more than 3 persons were traveling in the offending vehicle and accordingly, seeks to dismiss the appeal.
6. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for respondent No.1, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court noted supra in Mukund Dewangan’s case, no separate endorsement is required to drive a non-transport vehicle i.e., the category of vehicle which has been involved in the accident. Further, the insurer has failed to establish that more than 3 persons were traveling in the offending vehicle by adducing any evidence. In the present case, admittedly, the driver of the autorickshaw was holding a driving licence to drive LMV [NT]. The driving licence is marked as Ex.R4. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court noted supra, the findings recorded by the Tribunal holding that the owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle are liable to pay the compensation is justified. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER The appeal is dismissed.
The amount in deposit before this Court shall be transmitted to the Tribunal.
Ksm* Sd/- JUDGE.