IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN MFA No.3959/2017 (MV) BETWEEN:
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO.144, 2ND FLOOR, SUBHARAM COMPLEX, M. G. ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. ... APPELLANT (BY SMT. RENUKA H. R., ADV.) AND:
1. SAROJA K AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS D/O KANTHARAJ R/AT NO.193, ‘A’ BLOCK GUDIBANDE TOWN CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT – 561 209 2. SHANKARAPPA S/O. NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO 973/1, INDRANAGAR BEHIND I. B., CHIKKABALLAPUR TOWN, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT – 562 101 ( R.C. OWNER OF TATA MAGIC BEARING No.KA-40-9197). ... RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.02.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.1136/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, PRINCIPAL MACT, BENGALURU (S.C.C.H.-1), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.15,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING :
JUDGMENT The National Insurance Company Limited, the appellant, has challenged the legality of the award dated 14.02.2017, whereby for the injuries suffered by Smt. Saroja K., the learned Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the injured.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 05.07.2015 the claimant-respondent, along with others, was traveling in a TATA Magic Maxicab bearing registration No.KA-40/9197. When the said Maxicab reached near Amanibyrasandra, Vaddammka Temple, Gudibandi Town, around 7.40 a.m., the driver of maxicab drove the vehicle in such a rash and negligent manner, that it dashed against the wall constructed near a lake. Due to the said accident, the inmates of maxicab, including the respondent, suffered various injuries. Seven different claim petitions were filed by different injured persons. By common award dated 14.02.2017, the learned Tribunal granted different compensations. The claimant-respondent was granted a compensation of Rs.15,000/-. Hence, this appeal before this Court.
3. Smt. H. R. Renuka, the learned counsel for the appellant, has pleaded that although the driver had a driving licence for LMV, but the driving licence was not endorsed for driving a transport vehicle. Since proper endorsement was not made in the driving licence, the driver cannot be said to have a duly valid driving licence. Hence, the Tribunal was not justified in imposing the liability of paying the compensation upon the Insurance Company. Therefore, the impugned award deserves to be interfered with.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, and perused the impugned award.
5. The issue before this Court is, whether the driver of maxicab should have had an endorsement in his driving licence for driving a transport vehicle, or not ?
6. The said issue is no longer res integra as it has been decided by the Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited [AIR 2017 SC 3668]. According to the Apex Court, if the driver of the offending vehicle has a valid licence for driving a LMV, then the driving licence is not required to have a specific endorsement for driving a specific kind of vehicle.
7. Even if there were no specific endorsement in the driving licence of the driver of maxicab, absence of such an endorsement will not absolve the Insurance Company of its liability to pay the compensation amount to the respondent. Hence, the contention raised by the learned counsel for appellant is clearly unacceptable.
8. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the present petition. It is, hereby, dismissed.
9. The amount deposited by the insurance company shall be transmitted to the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal is directed to disburse the compensation amount to the claimant – respondent forthwith.
In view of disposal of main appeal, I.A.No.2/2017 filed seeking stay does not survive for consideration and it is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE HJ