IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.1971 OF 2014 [MV] BETWEEN C A Madhu @ Madhukumar s/o Ananda, aged about 21 years, Chatachatahalli village Halebidu Hobli, Belur Taluk Hassan District – 573 115. ... Appellant [By Sri Murthy D L, Advocate] AND 1. G H Kumaraswamy s/o Halage Gowda Aged about 54 years Gonisomanahalli Village and Post Halebeedu Hobli Belur Taluk Hassan District-573115 (owner of lorry bearing Registration No.KA-4/1089) 2. Divisional Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional office Do.V No.25, Shankaranarayana Building, M G Road, Bangalore Represented by the Branch Manager, United India Insurance Cop. Ltd.
Local Office, Venkateshwara Building, B M Road Hassan – 573201. (Policy No.070500:31: 09:01:00014101 Valid from 2.8.2009 to 01.08.2010) ... Respondents [By Sri S V Hegde Mulkhand, Advocate for R2 R1 – served) This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act against the judgment and award dated 9.3.2012 passed in MVC No.42/2010 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Belur, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
This MFA coming on for admission this day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the injured claimant assailing the judgment and award dated 9.3.2012 passed in MVC No.42/2010 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Belur, wherein a compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- has been awarded to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident and the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition against the insurer of the vehicle and saddled the liability on the insured to pay the compensation to the claimant.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as respondent No.2 – Insurance Company. Though respondent No.1 has been served with notice, he has remained unrepresented.
3. Appellant filed a claim petition seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident that occurred on 16.9.2009 at about 5.00 p.m. when he was riding a bicycle. It is his case that in front of KEB road at Halebeedu village, the driver of a lorry bearing Regn. No.KA-46/1089 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bicycle, due to which, he sustained grievous injuries all over his body and he was admitted to S.C. Hospital, Hassan and took treatment etc.
4. The Tribunal considering the evidence and material on record, awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- with interest at 8% p.a. The Tribunal held that there was valid insurance policy to the offending vehicle i.e. the lorry bearing Regn. No.KA-46/1089, however, after examining the copy of driving license of the driver of the lorry came to the conclusion that the driver of the lorry in question was holding a driving license to drive LMV and not holding a DL to drive the type of vehicle which was involved in the accident and therefore, held that there is violation of policy conditions and absolved the Insurance Company from paying the compensation and saddled the liability on the owner of the vehicle.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that there was valid driving license for the driver of the lorry at the time of accident and therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in absolving the Insurance Company and directing the owner of the vehicle to pay the compensation. He would also contend that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Accordingly, the learned counsel seeks to allow the appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has filed I.A.No.3/2014 seeking production of notarized copy of the driving license. He submits that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal, the driving license was not traced and therefore it was not produced and marked in evidence. He submits that an opportunity may be given to the appellant permitting him to produce the driving license.
7. The said application is opposed by learned counsel for respondent No.2. He contends that the appellant has not produced the driving license to show that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid driving license at the relevant point of time. He submits that if the appellant is permitted to produce the driving license at this stage, then he will not get an opportunity to rebut the same and therefore, he submits that the matter may be remitted back to the Tribunal.
8. The Tribunal has observed that the appellant has produced a copy of the driving license and the said driving license was in respect of the vehicle to drive LMV (Light Motor Vehicle) and not a transport vehicle i.e. type of vehicle, which was involved in the accident. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the driver of the offending vehicle was possessing a valid driving license to drive the lorry, which was involved in the accident. Considering the additional document produced by the appellant, I deem it appropriate to remit the matter to the Tribunal for giving an opportunity to the appellant to produce the same before the Tribunal and in that event, the respondent – Insurance Company shall be given an opportunity to defend its case in the manner known to law. The parties are permitted to lead additional evidence in addition to the evidence which has been already produced before the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible not later than three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The evidence already recorded and the documents marked shall be intact. With this observation, I pass the following: ORDER Appeal is allowed in part.
The judgment and award dated 9.3.2012 passed in MVC No.42/2010 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Belur, is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to dispose of the same in accordance with law.
I.A.No.3/2014 is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE Bkm