IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT MFA N0.6264 OF 2014 (MV) BETWEEN THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.2240/4, 1ST FLOOR, GIRIJAMMA, SHAMBUGOWDA BUILDING, CHURCH ROAD, CHANNAPATNA, RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT.
REPRESENTED BY REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.2-B, UNITY BUILDING ANNEX, MISSION ROAD, BANGALORE-560 027.
BY ITS DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY. (BY SRI RAVISHANKAR C R, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SMT. NAGAMMA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA 2. SRI. M. RAGHU AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, S/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA ...APPELLANT 3. SMT. M. SHOBHA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, D/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA, ALL ARE R/AT ANIYAMBADI VILLAGE, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT 571401.
4. SRI. M.T. RANGASWAMY S/O SRI. THIMMAIAH, NO.616/2, VIJAYA BANK BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, CHANNAPATNA TOWN, RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT-574511.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MUTHURAJU A, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R4 IS HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DATED 21/10/2019) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17-08- 2012 PASSED IN MVC No.60/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, CHANNAPATTANA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.3,96,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT.
THIS MFA COMING FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Though the appeal is listed for ‘Hearing – Interlocutory Application’, with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal.
2. Insurer is in appeal aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 17.08.2012 passed in MVC No.60/2012 on the file of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC and MACT, Channapatna, saddling the liability on respondent- Insurer.
3. The claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation for the death of one Mahadevappa in a road traffic accident occurred on 23.12.2008. It is stated that on 23.12.2008, when the deceased was traveling in a TATA Sumo vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA.01-A- 6950, which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the road divider, went to the right side of the road and dashed to a KSTRC bus bearing Reg.No.KA.17-F-930 and caused accident. Due to which, the deceased died on the spot. It is stated that the deceased was aged about 45 years and was earning a sum of Rs.1,000/- per day from his avocation of carpentry.
4. On service of notice, respondent-Insurer appeared before the Tribunal and filed its statement of objections denying the entire claim petition averments. It is further contended that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective licence to drive the vehicle.
5. Claimant No.1-wife of deceased examined herself as PW-1 and got marked documents as Ex.P-1 to P-7. Respondent No.2 examined himself as RW-1 and got marked one document as Ex.D-1.
6. The Tribunal on appreciating the entire material on record, awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,96,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of the petition till realization. While awarding the said compensation, the liability was saddled on the respondent-Insurer. Being aggrieved, the respondent-Insurer is before this Court in this appeal.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant- Insurer and learned counsel for respondent-claimants. Perused the entire lower court records.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurer urged that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle Tata Sumo bearing Reg.No. KA.01-A- 6950 as on the date of the accident. He further submits that the driver of the offending vehicle had licence to drive light motor non-transport vehicles, but it was not endorsed to drive transport vehicles.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants submits that as on this date, it is settled that a person who has licence to drive light motor non-transport vehicles can also drive LMV transport vehicle, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record, the only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether the Tribunal is justified in saddling the liability on the Insurer? Answer to the above point is in the affirmative for the following reasons:
11. The accident occurred on 23.12.2008 involving a KSTRC bus bearing Reg.No.KA.17-F-930 and a TATA Sumo vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA.01-A- 6950 and the accidental death of one Mahadevappa, is not in dispute in this appeal. The insurer is before this Court being aggrieved by saddling the liability on the insurer. The only contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurer is that the Tribunal ought not to have saddled the liability on the insurer since at the time of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective licence to drive the vehicle. Ex.D.1-Driving Licence is placed on record. The Ex.D.1 would indicate that the driver of the offending vehicle had driving licence to drive light motor vehicle-NT. It is not the case of the insurer that he had no valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle at all. The law is settled as on this date that the driver possessing driving licence to drive light motor vehicle-NT could also drive transport vehicle of light motor vehicle category. In view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663, the contention urged by the learned counsel for the insurer would not survive for consideration. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal.
In view of the dismissal of the appeal, I.A.No.2/2019 does not survive for consideration and accordingly, stands dismissed.
SD/- JUDGE DL