IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8148/2012 (MV) BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BRANCH OFFICE: BHATKAL BY DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD., P.B. NO.78, JEWEL PLAZA, 1ST FLOOR, MARUTHI VEETHIKA, UDUPI – 576 101 (BY SRI O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. MADEVA NAIK, AGE 54 YEARS, S/O. MASTHAPPA NAIK, R/O. SHIRUR VILLAGE AND POST, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 101 ... APPELLANT 2. SRIKANTH PRABHU, MAJOR, S/O. SRIDHAR PRABHU, R/O H.NO.42, VEERAVITTAL ROAD, BHATKAL – 581 320 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ASHWIN S. HALADY, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1;) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.06.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.1023/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, MACT, KUNDAPURA, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.45,200/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL PAYMENT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal is by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 07.06.2012 passed in MVC No.1023/2008 questioning the fastening of liability on Insurance Company to pay and recover the same from the Owner of the offending vehicle.
2. The claimant before the Tribunal claims compensation on the ground that on 27.05.2008 at about 11.00 a.m., when he was proceeding in a Bicycle from Bhatkal pete towards Muttalli on the side of the Road at the time the driver of the TATA ACE bearing No.KA-47/1410 came from Muttalli side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him, as a result of which he sustained the injuries. In pursuance of the claim petition, notice is issued against respondent No.2 – Insurance Company and the Insurance Company appears through its counsel and contended that at the time of alleged accident the Driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective Driving License to drive the nature of vehicle involved in the accident. The Tribunal after considering the material on record has come to the conclusion that the Driver was having LMV Driving License and not the Driving License for Transport Vehicle and directed to pay and recover the award amount. Being aggrieved the present appellant is before this Court.
3. The main contention of the appellant in this appeal is that the Driver of the insured Goods Vehicle has no Driving License authorizing him to drive the Transport Vehicle and hence, the Tribunal ought not to have passed an order to pay and recover.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs Oriental Ins.Co.Ltd – 2017(14) SCC 663, the contention of the Insurance Company cannot be accepted. Hence, there is no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sbs*