IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT MFA.NO.8923/2015 BETWEEN:
LEGAL MANAGER, RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, 5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING, NO.28, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. ... APPELLANT (By Sri PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. PEDDAKKA, W/O RAMAIAH, NOW AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/A YELLAPURA, OLD ROYAL WINCE, KASABA HOBLI, TUMKUR – 572 101.
2. VANAJAKSHI, W/O LATE YALAGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, ANTHARASANAHALLI VILLAGE, ARAKERE POST, TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT-572 101. ... RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:21.07.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.907/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT-10, TUMKUR, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.1,25,755/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Even though the appeal is listed for orders for taking steps, same is heard for admission.
2. Appellant – Insurance Company is before this Court assailing the judgment and award dated 21.07.2015 passed in MVC.No.907/2012 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Tumkur. Appellant was respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 was claimant before the Tribunal. The claimant filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation for the injury sustained in a road traffic accident. It is stated that on 07.09.2011, the claimant and her son were standing on the footpath of Yallapura bus stop waiting for the bus to go to Tumkur and at that time, an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KA-06/C-1082 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant, thereby she suffered grievous injuries. The Insurance Company appeared before the Tribunal and filed its objections. The claimant examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10. On behalf of Insurance Company, the Legal Officer was examined as R.W.1 and got marked Exs.R1 to R3.
3. The Insurance Company has taken up a contention that the driver of the autorickshaw had no valid and effective driving license to drive transport vehicle as on the date of the accident. The Tribunal found that the driver of the autorickshaw had license to drive the light motor vehicle and as such rejected the contention of the Insurance Company. On assessing the material on record, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of `1,25,755/- and saddled the liability on the Insurance Company. Aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company is before this Court in this appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant – Insurance Company.
5. The only contention urged by the appellant – Insurance Company is that the driver of the autorickshaw which involved in the accident on 07.09.2011 in which the claimant suffered accidental injuries had no valid and effective driving license to drive the autorickshaw. It is submitted that even though he had light motor vehicle license, the same was not endorsed to drive transport vehicle. The said contention is no more res integra in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, (2017) 14 SCC 663. Therefore, the appeal would not merit consideration. Accordingly, appeal is rejected. The amount in deposit be refunded to the appellant – Insurance Company.
Sd/- JUDGE PKS