IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9305/2015 (MV) BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER ICICI LOMBARD GEN INS CO. LTD., ICICI LOMBARD HOUSE 414, VEERA SAVARKAR ROAD SIDDI VINAYAKA TEMPLE PRABHADEVI, MUMBAI 400 025 REP. BY THE BRANCH MANAGER ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE C-22, MAXIMUM COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, HAMPANAKATTE MANGALURU – 01, NOW REP. BY MANAGER – LEGAL ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD., #89, II FLOOR, SVR COMPLEX HOSUR MAIN ROAD, MADIVALA BANGALORE – 560 068.
…APPELLANT (BY SRI A. N. KRISHNA SWAMY - ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT. SHARADAMMA W/O SHANKARACHAR NOW AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS KRISHNA NAGAARA HASSAN - 573201.
2. RAJAPPA S/O NANJAPPA NOW AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O MALLENAHALLI VILLAGE GANDASI HOBLI ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573201.
3. JAYANNA G.S. S/O SHESHAPPA A.T. HONNEGOWDA AGE: MAJOR R/O MURUNDHI GOLLARAHATTI VILLAGE MURUNDHI POST KASABA HOBLI ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573201.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI CHETHAN .B – ADVOCATE FOR R-1) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.09.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO. 1760/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MACT, HASSAN, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS. 1,41,500/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T This appeal is presented by the insurer challenging the liability.
2. Sri. A.N. Krishnaswamy, learned advocate for the insurer submits that the offending vehicle is an Autorikshaw and the driver did not possess a valid driving license.
3. Sri. B. Chethan, learned advocate for the claimant submits that as held in paragraph Nos. 46 (ii) and (iv) by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, reported in AIR 2017 SC 3668, a vehicle which weighs less than 7500 Kgs falls within the category of `Light Motor Vehicle’. Hence, the driver of the offending vehicle was entitled to drive the Autorikshaw. This position of law is not disputed by Sri. A.N. Krishnaswamy, learned advocate for the insurer.
4. Resultantly, this appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE LRS/BM