IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.755/2013(MV) BETWEEN THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., 44/45, RESIDENCY ROAD, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, BANGALORE 560025 BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER AND ALSO: THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.213-217, NAGAPRABHA CHAMBERS, 3RD MAIN, 4TH CROSS, CHAMRAJPET, BANGALORE-560 018 ... APPELLANT (BY SRI E S INDIRESH, ADVOCATE) AND 1. K.N. SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, S/O K.C. NAGARAJU, RESIDING AT NO. 48/10, SRI BHAIRAVESWARA SWEETS AND CONDIMENTS, RAILWAY GATE ROAD, NAYANDAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 039 2. RAJU S/O ERANNA GOWDA, MAJOR, RESIDING AT MANGADHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT ... RESPONDENTS (SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:13.7.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.1255/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE (SCCH-09), AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.59,370/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
J U D G M E N T This appeal is by the Insurer challenging the quantum and liability, wherein the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.59,370/- to the injured/claimant, who sustained injuries in a road traffic accident and fastened the liability on the Insurer, holding that both the owner and the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
2. Appeal is filed mainly on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle, namely; Tempo bearing No.KA-42/1909 was not possessing a valid and effective Driving License at the time of accident, since he was possessing a license to drive LMV(NT), on the other hand the offending vehicle was a transport vehicle. It is also urged that the compensation awarded in a sum of Rs.59,370/- with 6% interest is on the higher side, as the claimant had failed to prove his medical bills etc.
3. The facts of the case are that on 17.10.2009 at about 11.30 a.m., when the claimant was going by walk near Railway gate, Nayandahalli, at that time, the driver of the Tempo bearing No.KA-42/1909 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, with high speed and dashed against him from behind, on account of which he sustained injuries.
4. The injured-claimant was admitted as an inpatient and took treatment at Mysore Road Hi-tech Hospital, Bangalore. The case of the claimant was that he was studying in B.Sc., VI Sem. and on account of the accident he has sustained crush injuries over the left foot with fracture base of II and V metatarsal bone and that he is not able to attend the classes and also he incurred huge medical expenses for the treatment.
5. Ex.P6 is the Wound Certificate which shows that the claimant had sustained fracture base of II and V metatarsal bone with crushing left foot. Ex.P7 Discharge Summery would go to show that he sustained crush injury to the left foot with fractures of metatarsal bone. The doctor was not examined. Hence, there was no evidence with regard to the actual disability if at all suffered by the claimant. The Discharge Summary shows that the claimant was an inpatient from 17.10.2009 to 19.10.2009. Exs.P8 and P10 are the 11 prescriptions and 32 medical bills and receipts. Considering the aforesaid evidence and material on record, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.59,370/-. The same cannot be said to be on the higher side or excessive.
6. The vehicle involved is a Tempo. According to the appellant, the driver of the said vehicle was not possessing a valid driving license at the time of accident. Ex.R3 is the Driving License Extract. As per Ex.R3, the driver of the said Tempo had license to drive LMV(NT). It is observed that the said Goods Tempo is a light Goods Vehicle having loading capacity of 5700 Kgs. laden weight of 3240 Kgs.
7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another reported in AIR 2017 has held that no separate endorsement is required to drive a transport vehicle in the category which are termed as light motor vehicles, if the unladen weight is below 7500 Kgs. It is not in dispute that the unladen weight of the offending vehicle is below 7500/- Kgs. In that view of the matter, the appeal is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE SBS*