IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR M.F.A. NO.2477 OF 2016 (MV) BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER ICICI LOMBARD GEN INS LTD ZENITH HOUSE KESHAVRAO KHADE MARK, MAHALAKSHMI, MUMBAI-400035 THE MANAGER,, ICICI LOMBARD GIC LTD., MYTHRI ARCADE, BESIDE SWARSWATHI TALKIES SAWASWATHIPURAM, REGIONAL OFFICE, ICICI LOMBARD GEN INS CO LTD, # 121, THE ESTATE BUILDING, 9TH FLOOR, DICKSON ROAD, BANGALORE-42.
... APPELLANT (By Sri. PRADEEP.B, ADV.) AND 1. RAVIKUMAR S/O MOLLEGOWDA, NOW AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, CHIKKAIAHNA CHATRA HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK 571301 2. SRI. KIRANKUMAR S/O VEERABHADRAPPA, NOW AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT 28/74 MUNIYAPPA BUILDING, HARINAGAR, R C R S., BANGALORE-560051 3. JAYASHANKARA REDDY.G.V S/O LATE V.VENKATESHWARA REDDY NOW AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT 314/4, OMKAR TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BANDIPALYA MYSORE, MYSURU-570001.
... RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO R-2 D/W BY ORDER DT. 3.7.2019 AND TO R-3 BY ORDER DT. 16.7.2019) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:08.01.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.46/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, & JMFC, MACT, NANJANGUD, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.2,10,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT Learned counsel for the appellant, in his usual fairness submitted that the matter is covered by a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited1.
1 AIR 2017 SC 3368 2. This appeal is by the insurer against the Judgment and award passed by the Tribunal holding that the insurer is liable to indemnify the owner.
3. Sri.Pradeep, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid licence as transport endorsement was not found on the licence.
4. It is settled that insurer is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle even though the licence of driver of offending vehicle does not contain transport endorsement. Hence, the tribunal has rightly saddled the liability on the appellant-insurer.
In view of the law laid down in Mukund Dewangan’s case (supra1), this appeal does not merit consideration and is accordingly dismissed.
No costs.
Registry is directed to transfer the amount in deposit to the Tribunal for disbursement in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE ln.