IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ MFA.No.10364 OF 2011(MV) Between:
Legal Officer, Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., #5, II Floor, white House, St.Marks Road, Bengaluru – 560001. …Appellant (By Sri.A.N.Krishnaswamy, Adv.) And:
1. Rama Naik, S/o Dhavaja Naik @ Dharuza Naik, C/o Puriya Naik, Now aged about 52 years, R/o Geddalahalli, RMV II Stage, Sanjay Nagara, Bengaluru – 560023.
2. Shekhar Naik, S/o Bheema Naik, Major, R/a Gokulhatti(AT), Guttidurga(P), Jagaluar Taluk, Davangere District – 577001. ... Respondents (R1 - service of notice is accepted as per the order dated 09.11.2015, R2 served) This MFA filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act against the Judgment and award dated 05.04.2011 passed in MVC No.2432/2010 on the file of the 14th Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT, Bengaluru, awarding a compensation of Rs.15,000/- with interest @ 8% p.a from the date of petition till deposit.
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 05.04.2011 passed in MVC No.2432/2010 on the file of the MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru City, wherein the Tribunal awarded a global compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the claimants with interest at the rate of 8% p.a.
2. The only contention of the appellant is that the driver of the vehicle in question i.e., Appe Auto rickshaw bearing Registration No.KA-17/A-9881, was not possessing a valid and effective driving license to drive the said type of vehicle and he was having a driving license to drive only LMV (NT). That there being no endorsement for driving a Transport vehicle, the Tribunal was not proper in directing the Insurance Company to pay the compensation and thereafter to recover the said amount from the owner of the offending vehicle.
3. The question raised in this appeal has already been decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., reported in AIR 2017 SC 3668.
4. In view of the settled position of law, the contentions raised by the appellant is hereby rejected.
5. It is held that in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court noted supra, the appellant-Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation to the respondents/claimants.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
In view of the dismissal of the appeal, I.A.No.2/2011 does not survive for consideration. Same is also dismissed.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE NS