IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD M.F.A.No.297 OF 2014 (MV) Between:
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Mahadevapura Branch, No.67/1 Reddy complex, Whitefield Main Road Mahadevapura Post Bangalore–560 048. Represented by the Manager The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Bangalore Regional Office – 670 000. Motor Third Party Claims Hub Mahalakshmi Complex, M.G. Road, Bangalore – 560 001.
(By Sri K.P. Thrimurthy, Adv. for Sri Rajagopalan R., Adv.) And:
1. Sri Srinivas K. S/o. Kenchappa Aged about 40 years R/at Samethanahalli V & P Kadugodi Via, Hoskote (T) Bangalore – 560 067.
2. S. Keshava S/o Srinivasa No.48, Bhovanappa Layout Thavarekere Main Road DRC (Post), Bangalore – 29 ... Appellant (Owner of vehicle No.KL-03-P-5877) … Respondents ( By Sri K.T. Gurudeva Prasad Adv. for R1 R-2 Served) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act, against the Judgment and award dated 09.07.2013 passed in MVC No.3781/2011 on the file of the V Additional Small Causes Judge & XXIV ACMM, Member MACT, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall unit, Bangalore awarding compensation of Rs.58,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.
This appeal is coming on for Admission this day, the Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T This appeal is filed by the insurance company challenging the judgment and award dated 09-07-2013 passed by the MACT & V Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore (SCCH-20) in M.V.C.No.3781/2011.
2. On 16-06-2011 at about 5.30 a.m., when the claimant was riding motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-53-H-6063 on extreme left side of Channasandra main road and he was going from east to west direction, when he reached near Manjunath Bar, all of a sudden one cab bearing No.KL-03-P- 5877 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from opposite direction, dashed to the motorcycle of the claimant, due to which he sustained grievous injuries on vital parts of his body. Immediately, the claimant was shifted to Vydehi Hospital, where he has taken a treatment. When the claimant recovered from the injury, he has filed a claim petition. To establish his claim, he has examined himself as PW.1 and marked 11 documents. On the other hand, the insurance company has examined one witness and has marked five documents. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has held that the insurance company of the offending vehicle is liable to pay compensation of Rs.58,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of its realization. Being aggrieved by the same, the insurance company has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
3. Sri. R. Rajagopalan, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company has submitted that as on the date of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding the valid license to drive Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) but he had driven Maxi Cab which is a transport vehicle, where he has no endorsement to drive the transport vehicle. The Tribunal has wrongly fastened the liability on the insurance company. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 has contended that the Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability on the insurance company. He further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED reported in AIR 2017 SC 3668. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has suffered injuries due to the accident occurred on 16-06-2011 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of cab bearing registration No.KL-03-P-5877.
The Tribunal, after considering the evidence of the parties and the material on record has held that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation and also held that even though he got a license to drive light motor vehicle, that itself is sufficient to drive the transport vehicle. Now that Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan’s case (supra) has held that the driver holding a license to drive light motor vehicle can drive all the vehicles including transport vehicle.
7. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability on the insurance company. Hence, I decline to interfere in the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
The amount in deposit before this Court is directed to be transferred to the Tribunal forthwith.
SMJ/nms Sd/- JUDGE