IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1393/2016(MV) BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KRUTHIKA ARCADE, 2ND FLOOR, N.R.CIRCLE, H.N.PURA ROAD HASSAN ALSO AT M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INS. CO.LTD., NO.28, 5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING M G ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001 NOW REPRESENTED BY MANAGER LEGAL ….APPELLANT (BY SRI ASHOK N.PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. PADMA @ PADMAMMA W/O LATE SAKEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 2. DHARMA S/O LATE SAKEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS BOTH ARE R/O CHIKKAKADANURU VILLAGE, HALLIMYSURU HOBLI H N PURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 201 3. G P RAJASHEKAR S/O PUTTEGOWDA NO.MIG-39, KUVEMPUNAGAR 2ND STAGE, HASSAN – 573 201 4. GANESH S/O MALLIKARJUNA R/O BEECHANAHALLI VILLAGE HOLENARASIPURA TALUK – 573 211 ….RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.A.R.SHARADAMBA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI SURESH.M, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
R3-SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:22.12.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.1883/13 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOLENARASIPUR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.3,95,500/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal arises out of the judgment and award passed by the Senior Civil Judge & M.A.C.T at Holenarasipur in M.V.C.1883/2013. By the impugned award the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.3,95,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. payable by the appellant insurance company.
2. First and second respondents are the claimants and third respondent is the owner and fourth respondent is the driver of the vehicle in question. For the purpose of convenience, parties will be referred to hereafter with their ranks before the Tribunal.
3. Claimants filed M.V.C.No.1883/2013 contending that on 21.07.2013 at about 1.30 p.m. at Hassan- Mysuru road when deceased was proceeding near Chikkakadanuru Village, in front of the house of Annegowda on the left side of the road, the driver of the tempo travels vehicle bearing No.KA-13-A-6389 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the deceased Sakegowda. Due to the accident, the said Sakegowda fell down sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot.
4. The registered owner of the vehicle, driver of the vehicle and the insurance company contested the matter. They denied the occurrence of the accident, negligence on the part of the driver, damages alleged by the claimants. In addition to that the insurance company contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding effective driving licence as on the date of the accident to drive light motor vehicle-(transport vehicle), therefore, it is not liable to pay the compensation.
5. Parties adduced evidence. On claimant’s side, PWs1 and 2 are examined and Exs.P.1 to P.8 are marked. On the side of the respondents no evidence was marked.
6. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties awarded compensation of Rs.3,95,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. payable by the insurance company from the date of petition till its realization.
7. Sri Ashok N Patil, learned counsel for the appellant in his arguments seek to assail the impugned award on the ground that as on the date of the accident the driver of the offending vehicle was holding licence only to drive light motor vehicle (non-transport vehicle) and the vehicle involved in the accident is Light Motor Vehicle (Goods transport vehicle).
8. Smt. A.R. Sharadamba, learned counsel for the claimants relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan -vs- Oriental Insurance Company Limited, AIR 2017 SC 3668, to contend that the driving licence was effective. The Apex Court in that case held that the driver holding a driving licence to drive light motor vehicle – non-transport is not required additionally to obtain an endorsement from Transport authority to drive transport vehicle of the same class. The matter on that point is fully covered by the Judgment in Mukund Dewangan’s case referred to supra. Consequently, the contention of the insurer that there was breach of policy condition due to driver not holding the valid driving licence and therefore, it is not liable to pay the compensation fails. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
The statutory amount in deposit be transmitted to the MACT forthwith.
Sd/- JUDGE HR