IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ MFA NO.8834 OF 2013 [MV] BETWEEN M/S. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, 1ST FLOOR, ENJAYS COMPLEX, BALMATTA, MANGALORE, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.144, SHUBHARAM COMPLEX, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001, REP. BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI.A.M. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE) AND 1. MOHAMMED ZUNAID @ ZUNAID, S/O. ABDUL KHADAR, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/O. BEHIND MASTIKATTE BUS STOP, ULLAL, MANGALORE TALUK-575 001.
2. MOHAMMED HANEEF, S/O. ABDULLA RAHIMAN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O. MELAR, BADRIYANAGAR, PAVOOR, MANGALORE TALUK-575 001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.G. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2-SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 20.07.2018) THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.06.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.143/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, MANGALORE, D.K., AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1,43,993/- 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 Though this appeal is listed for admission, the same is taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned counsel on both sides.
The Insurance Company has filed this appeal, challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 27.06.2013, passed by the MACT and II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada, in MVC No.143/2012.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1-claimant.
3. The Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,43,993/- along with interest with 6% per annum to the claimant-respondent No.1 for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident, which occurred on 07.11.2011 involving an auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-19-B-2941.
4. The sole contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company is that the offending vehicle is a three wheeler auto rickshaw and it is a commercial vehicle meant for carrying passenger for hire or reward. The driver of the said vehicle was not possessing an effective driving license with proper transport endorsement. On the other hand, he was holding a driving license to drive an LMV (NT). Therefore, it is his contention that there is violation of conditions of the insurance policy and the Insurer is not liable to pay the compensation.
5. It is not disputed that the offending vehicle was covered with a valid insurance policy as on the date of accident. Ex.R2 is the driving license extract. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the driver of the three wheeler had license to drive a transport vehicle with effect from 18.11.2004 to 17.11.2007 which was renewed from 13.03.2008 to 12.03.2011 and again renewed from 12.12.2011 to 11.12.2014. Therefore, it would indicate that as on the date of accident i.e., on 07.11.2011, he had no driving license to drive a transport vehicle.
6. The fact remains that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a driving license to drive an LMV (NT) as on the date of accident. It is not in dispute that the unladen weight of the vehicle is less than 7,500 kgs. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in AIR 2017 SCC 663 has held that no separate endorsement is required to drive such a transport vehicle. The contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant in this appeal has already been decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decision. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER The appeal is dismissed.
The amount in deposit before this Court shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE snc