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 Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 1142 of 2013 (MV) BETWEEN:
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO.105A/107A, CEARS PLAZA, 136, RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE-560025, BY ITS ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT NO.2.
... APPELLANT (BY SMT. H. R. RENUKA, ADV.) AND:
1. MAMATHA W/O. LATE PUTTANNA , D/O. KULLEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O. KODIPURA VILLAGE, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571430.
2. B. A. NAGARAJU S/O. APPAJIGOWDA, ADULT, R/O. KERE AGRAHARA, T. DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE-560057.
3. NINGAMMA W/O. SANNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.
4. SANNEGOWDA S/O. BETTEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 ARE RESIDENT OF KODIPURA VILLAGE, MALAVALLI TALUK – 571430.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ASHA B. L., ADV. FOR SRI G. M. ANANDA, ADV. FOR R-1 V/O DATED 18-09-2015, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2 HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.11.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.74/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, MALAVALLI, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.4,63,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Judgment The appellant, the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., has challenged the legality of the award dated 22-11-2012, passed by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Malavalli, whereby, for the death of Puttanna, the learned Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.4,63,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition, till the date of deposit.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 21-04-2017, around 8 p.m., Puttanna was riding his bullock cart on the left side of the road on the Hullahalli Channel Road towards Kodipura village. However, suddenly a goods auto, bearing Reg. No. KA-52/990, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite side, and dashed against the bullock cart. Due to the accident, both Puttanna and the bulls suffered certain injuries. Subsequently, Puttanna succumbed to his injuries. Therefore, having lost the sole bread earner his family, filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal. In order to support their case, the respondent-claimant No.1 examined herself as a witness, and submitted eight documents. On the other hand, the Insurance Company also examined a witness, and submitted five documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal granted the compensation as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal before this Court.
3. Ms. H. R. Renuka, the learned counsel for the appellant, has raised a single contention before this Court, namely, that the driver of the auto did not have any specific endorsement on his driving license that he was authorised to drive a transport vehicle. He merely had a driving license for driving a non-transport vehicle. Since he did not have a valid license, the Insurance Company could not have been made liable by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, the award deserves to be set aside.
4. On the other hand, Ms. Asha B. L., the learned counsel for the claimant-respondent, has relied on the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED [CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5826/11 decided on 3rd July 2017 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court] in order to buttress her plea that in case a driver has a driving license for LMV, the driving license is not required to have a specific endorsement for driving a transport vehicle. Since the driver of the offending vehicle, in the present case, did have a valid driving license for driving an auto, the Insurance Company cannot escape its liability, merely on the ground that there was no specific endorsement on the driving license for driving a transport vehicle. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the Insurance Company is, indeed, liable to pay the compensation to the claimant.
5. Heard the learned counsel, and perused the impugned award.
6. The issue whether a specific endorsement is required in a driving license for driving a transport vehicle, is no longer res integra after the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN (supra). According to the Apex Court, in case 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.
7. Admittedly, in the present case, the driver of the offending vehicle did have a 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 by the Insurance Company shall be disbursed to the claimants, forthwith.
Sd/- Judge Rd/-