IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT MFA N0.2602 OF 2015 (MV) BETWEEN KRISHNA S/O LATE NINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O HOSABUDANUR VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MANDYA TQ AND DISTRICT-571409 (BY SRI M Y SREENIVASAN, ADVOCATE) AND 1 . RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD ., R/P BY BRANCH MANAGER, 1ST FLOOR, MYSORE TRADE CENTRE, OPP TO KSRTC BUS STAND, MYSORE-570001 2 . M MARIYAPPA S/O H MARIYAPPA, MAJOR, R/O NO.261/8, V V MOHALLA, CHAMARAJA MOHALLA, MYSORE-570017 ...APPELLANT …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H S LINGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI N SURESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:14.8.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.547/2009 ON THE FIL OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, MANDYA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The claimant is in appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, being aggrieved by the saddling the liability on respondent No.3 instead of respondent No.2-Insurer under the judgment and award dated 14.08.2014 in MVC No.547/2009 on the file of the Prl. Sr. Civil Judge & MACT, Mandya.
2. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act claiming compensation for the injuries suffered in a road traffic accident. It is stated that on 16.06.2009, when the claimant along with one N.Shivaraju were proceeding in a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-11/L-3987, driver of TATA Indica car bearing registration No.KA-01/A-7426, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle, as a result, the claimant sustained grievous injuries.
3. On service of notice, respondent - Insurer appeared and filed its objections contending that the driver of the car involved in the accident was not having valid licence as on the date of accident and the claim is exorbitant and baseless.
4. The Tribunal on appreciating the material on record both oral and documentary awarded total global compensation of Rs.20,000/- with interest at 6% per annum and saddle the liability on respondent No.3 on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident. The claimant accepting the quantum of compensation, aggrieved by saddling of liability on respondent No.3 is before this Court in this appeal.
5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, the only point that arise for consideration in this appeal is, as to whether the Tribunal is justified in saddling the liability on respondent No.3 owner of the offending vehicle?
6. The accident occurred on 16.6.2009 involving motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-11/L- 3987 and Tata Indica car bearing registration No.KA- 01/A-7426 and the accidental injuries suffered by the claimant is not in dispute in this appeal. The claimant is in appeal being aggrieved by saddling of the liability on respondent No.3 owner of the offending vehicle and prays for shifting the liability to respondent No.2 insurer. Ex.R2 Driving Licence particulars would indicate that the driver of the offending vehicle had licence to drive LMV (NT) vehicle. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN /VS./ ORIENTRAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663, has held that a person who possess the LMV (NT) licence could also drive LMV transport vehicle of the same category. In the instant case as the driver of the offending vehicle was possessing the driving licence to drive LMV(NT) vehicle, he could also drive LMV transport vehicle. In view of the said legal position, the saddling of liability on respondent No.3 by the Tribunal is wholly erroneous. That part of the judgment and award is set aside. The respondents No.2 and 3 are jointly liable to pay compensation and the respondent No. 2 Insurer is directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.
Sd/- JUDGE KLY/