IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2942/2015 (MV) c/w MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2943/2015 (MV) In MFA No.2942/2015 Between:
The National Insurance Company Ltd., Division Office, Rasik Chambers Near Central Market, Mangalore Represented by its Authorized Signatory at Regional Office No.144, Shubharam Complex M G Road, Bangalore – 560 001. ... Appellant (By Sri Srishaila S, Advocate) And:
1. James Rodrigues S/o. Sebastian Rodrigues Aged about 49 years 2. Smt. Elizabet Pinto S/o. Mr. James Rodrigues Major in age Both 1 and 2 are r/at Hill Side Apartments Flat no.B2, Padavinangady Mangalore, D.K- 575 001.
3. Mr. Jeevan Santhosh Lobo Aged about 25 years S/o. Ceril Lobo R/o. Ramakodi House Moodu Peraru Post Mangalore Taluk, D.K-575 001.
4. Lancy Lobo Aged about 53 years S/o. Agostine Lobo Near Mutheppa Gudi Shaktinagara Village Mangalore Taluk, D.K-575 001. … Respondents (By Sri Sandesh Shetty, Adv. for R1 & R2 Sri G. Ravishankar Shastry, Adv. for R4 R3 - served) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act, against the Judgment and award dated 15.12.2014 passed in MVC No.875/2011 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge & MACT-VI, Mangalore, D.K., awarding compensation of Rs.3,75,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.
In MFA No.2943/2015 Between:
The National Insurance Company Ltd., Division Office, Rasik Chambers Near Central Market, Mangalore Represented by its Authorized Signatory at Regional Office No.144, Shubharam Complex M G Road, Bangalore – 560 001. ... Appellant (By Sri Srishaila S, Advocate) And:
1. Linet Planit Pinto D/o. Lawrence Pinto Aged about 25 years R/at Deepika College Deepika Nagar Kulai, Mangalore, D.K.
2. Mr. Jeevan Santhosh Lobo Aged about 25 years S/o. Ceril Lobo R/o. Ramakodi House Moodu Peraru Post Mangalore Taluk, D.K.
3. Lancy Lobo Aged about 53 years S/o. Agostine Lobo Near Mutheppa Gudi Shaktinagara Village Mangalore Taluk, D.K. … Respondents This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act, against the Judgment and award dated 15.12.2014 passed in MVC No.874/2011 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge & MACT-VI, Mangalore, D.K., awarding compensation of Rs.12,570/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.
These appeals are coming on for Admission this day, the Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T Aggrieved by the common judgment and award passed by the MACT, I Additional Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Mangalore in MVC Nos.874/2011 and 875/2011, the insurer has filed these two appeals.
2. MFA No.2942/2015 is arising out of MVC No.875/2011 and MFA No.2943/2015 is arising out of MVC No.874/2011.
3. The Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.12,570/- in MVC No.874/2011 to the injured claimant and the compensation of Rs.3,75,000/- to the claimants in MVC No.875/2011.
4. The sole contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company is that the vehicle which was involved in the accident is a goods tempo and the driver of the said vehicle was possessing a driving license to drive only a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) and not a transport vehicle or goods vehicle and therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in fastening the liability on the insurer to pay the compensation.
5. The learned counsel for respondent No.4/owner of the offending vehicle submits that the driver of the offending vehicle was possessing a valid and effective driving license as on the date of the accident and though there is no endorsement in the said driving license with regard to the transport vehicle, however in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN V. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., (AIR 2017 SC 3668) no separate endorsement is necessary and insurer is liable to pay the compensation.
6. It is not in dispute that the vehicle which was involved in the accident is a goods tempo and the driver of the said tempo was possessing a driving license to drive LMV (NT). The Hon’ble Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan’s case (noted supra) has held that no separate endorsement is necessary in the driving license to drive a transport vehicle. The said position of law is not disputed. In view of the same, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. There is no merit in these appeals.
Accordingly, both these appeals are dismissed. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE nms