IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.NO.1914 OF 2013 (MV) BETWEEN:
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., DAVANGERE BRANCH.
THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.144, SUBHARAM COMPLEX, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. REP. BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER MR. R.LAKSHMAN RAO.
(BY SRI. B C SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI. J.G.PARAMESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O GIRIYAPPA, R/O JODI SRIRAMPURA VILLAGE, HOSADURGA TALUK-577527.
2. SRI. PRADEEP H.S. MAJOR S/O SOMASHEKHARAPPA H.V.
RESIDING BEHIND POLICE QUARTERS HOLALKERE TOWN, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577526.
...APPELLANT (OWNER OF MARUTHI VAN NO.KA.16/A-8305) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. D.S.SHIVANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.V.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI. N.D.MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.12.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.135/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE ITINERARY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT, HOSADURGA, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.60,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The insurer is in appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, assailing the judgment and award dated 22/12/2012 in M.V.C.No.135/2011 on the file of the Itinerary Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Hosadurga.
2. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation for the accidental injuries suffered by the claimant, death of a bullock and for damages caused to bullock cart in a motor vehicle accident. It is stated that on 24-9-2010, when the claimant was proceeding in his bullock cart, Maruthi Van bearing Reg.No.KA-16/A-8305 driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the bullock cart. Due to which, the claimant sustained injuries and bullock cart also sustained damages. The claimant was shifted to Government Hospital, Hosadurga.
3. On issuance of notice, respondent No.1 remained absent. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company appeared before the Tribunal and filed its statement of objections denying the claim petition averments. Further stated that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the claimant himself. It is further contended that the driver of the maruthi van had no valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident.
4. The claimant examined himself as PW-1 and marked documents Exs.P-1 to P-13. Respondents examined RW-1 & 2, apart from marking documents Exs.R-1 to R-4.
5. The Tribunal on appreciating the material on record, awarded total compensation of Rs.60,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization and saddled the liability on respondent-insurer. Aggrieved by the same, the insurer is before this Court in this appeal, contending that the Tribunal committed an error in saddling the liability on the appellant-insurer as the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer and learned counsel for the respondent-claimant. Perused the material on record.
7. The only point urged by the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer is that the driver of the offending maruthi van had no valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident. It is further submitted that the driver was driving maruthi van i.e., Passenger Carrying Commercial Vehicle but he had no license to drive LMV- Transport vehicle, whereas he had license to drive LMV- (non-transport) vehicle. As such, the Tribunal could not have fastened the liability on the insurer. The said contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer is no more res-integra in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the said decision has held that the driver who possess LMV-NT license could also drive the LMV-(Transport) of the same category. In the instant case, the respondents have placed on record the D.L.Extract as well as B Register Extract i.e., Exs.R2 & R3, which would demonstrate that the driver of the offending maruthi van was possessing LMV-NT license. As such, he could also drive LMV-TV in view of the above settled position of law. Thus, the appeal would not survive for consideration and accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
The statutory amount in deposit be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE SMJ