IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR M.F.A. No.3289/2016 (MV) BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, P.B. NO.78, 1ST FLOOR, “JEWEL PLAZ”, MARUTHI VEETHIKA ROAD, UDUPI – 576 201. … APPELLANT (BY SHRI O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. PRADEEP, S/O KRISHNA MOGAVEERA, AGED 26 YEARS, R/O “VIGNESHWARA NILAYA”. KORAVADY VILLAGE, KUMBASHI POST, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 201.
2. SUDHAKARA DEVADIGA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O CHANDU DEVADIGA, R/O “APEJARY HOUSE”, MOODARU VILLAGE, BAJAGOLI, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 201.
3. UMESH SHEREGARA, S/O SUNDAR SHEREGAR, AGED 32 YEARS, R/O “SUREKHA NILAYA”, AMBADY, KOTE VILLAGE, KATAPADI, UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT – 576 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SHRI K. SHASHIKANTH PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.02.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.587/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, KUNDAPURA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.6,54,338/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT Heard Sri. O. Mahesh, learned advocate for the appellant – Insurer and Sri. K. Prasanna Shetty, learned advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri. K. Shashikanth Prasad, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
2. This appeal is presented by the insurer challenging the judgment and decree dated 08.02.2016 passed in M.V.C.No.587/2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Kundapura.
3. Sri. O. Mahesh, learned Advocate for the insurer urged a solitary contention that insurer is not liable to pay compensation because the offending vehicle is an auto rickshaw and the driver of the said vehicle had licence to drive light motor vehicle without endorsement to drive transport vehicle.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submit that the issue is covered by the decision in the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN VS. ORENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED reported in AIR 2017 SCC 3668.
5. In reply, Sri. O. Mahesh, learned counsel submitted that the correctness of the decision in Mukund Dewangan’s case has been referred to a larger Bench.
6. I have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused records.
7. It is not in dispute that the driver of the auto rickshaw had the licence to drive light motor vehicle. The issue in controversy is with regard to the endorsement. Sri. O. Mahesh, learned counsel contends that this matter is referred to a larger Bench. However, as on date, in view of the decision in the case of Mukund Dewangan, the injured-claimant is entitled for the benefit of the said judgment.
8. In the circumstances, the appeal does not merit any consideration and it is accordingly, dismissed.
The Registry shall transfer the amount in deposit to the Tribunal for disbursement in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE vp