IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR MFA NO.7960 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
SRI P.PRATHAP S/O. LATE PAPANNA AGE ABOUT 43 YEARS NO.33, PRATHAP BUILDING MATERIAL SUPPLIER, CHINNAMMA GARDEN SUBBAIAHNAPALYA BANASAWADI – 560 043 BANGALORE …PETITIONER (BY SHRI SUBASH REDDY V, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED NO.132, SECOND FLOOR RICHMOND TOWN BANGALORE 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER 2. SMT. VENKATAMMA W/O. LATE N.GULLAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS NO.554, BAGLUR JALA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL.) TALUK BANGALORE – 562157 3. SMT. JAYANTHI D/O. LATE N.GULLAPPA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS NO.115, R.M.NAGAR BALAJI STREET, RAMAMURTHYNAGAR BANGALORE – 560016 4. SMT. CHANDRIKA D/O. LATE N.GULLAPPA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS NO.33, NAGANALA VILLAGE KOLAR TALUK & DISTRICT – 563129 5. SMT. SHANTAMMA D/O. LATE N.GULLAPPA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS NO.490, BAGALUR JALA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL.) TALUK BANGALORE – 562157 6. SMT. AMBIKA D/O. LATE N.GULLAPPA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS NO.361, BAGALUR JALA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL.) TALUK BANGALORE – 562157 7. SMT. SUMITRA D/O. LATE N.GULLAPPA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS NO.309, BAGLUR JALA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL.) TALUK BANGALORE - 562157 … RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI K.ABHINAV ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R7; SHRI RAVI S.SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:23.03.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.4632/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, PRINCIPAL MACT, BANGALORE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.7,39,528/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS,THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER This appeal is presented by the owner of a Tipper lorry bearing Registration No.KA-43/6040 which is the offending vehicle in a road traffic accident resulted in death of one N.Gullappa, a bicycle rider on 15.09.2014 on Bagalur-Mittigenahalli road in the outskirts of Bengaluru City.
2. Legal representatives of deceased N.Gullapa, filed claim petition seeking compensation. By judgment and award dated 23.03.2016, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.7,39,528/- as compensation payable with interest @ 9% p.a., and held that owner of the vehicle is liable to pay the compensation. Feeling aggrieved, the owner of the offending vehicle has presented this appeal.
3. Shri Subash Reddy, V., learned advocate for the appellant urged following grounds:
that the tribunal has erred in absolving the insurer on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid driving licence. This finding is erroneous in the light of evidence adduced by RW.1-Mallikarjun C who is the Deputy Commissioner of Transport and a Senior RTO; and that no action has been taken by the RTO authorities against the driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, the claim of insurer that the licence is fake one is untenable.
4. Shri K.Abinav Anand and Shri Ravi.S.Samprathi, learned advocates for claimants and insurer respectively argued in support of the judgment and award.
5. I have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records.
6. The Tribunal has directed the owner of the offending vehicle to pay the compensation and absolve the insurer from paying the compensation, on the ground that the driving licence held by the driver of the offending vehicle was a fake one. To substantiate their contention, insurer examined the Deputy Commissioner of Transport as RW.1. The tribunal has recorded in paragraph No.46 of its judgment that in the cross-examination of RW.1, he has admitted that the licence in question was issued in Vellore, Tamilnadu on 15.08.2001 which is a National Holiday. He has also admitted that all the national holidays are holidays to RTO office also. He has also admitted that the driver had approached RW.1 for change of address and for renewal of licence in question. Accordingly, driving licence was renewed on 16.07.2010 and 19.09.2013. He has further stated that sometimes, licences are renewed without NOC.
7. In paragraph No.47 of the judgment, the Tribunal has recorded that in the cross-examination of RW.1 he has admitted that licence in question bearing No.TN-2320010001785 was issued in favour of one N.Gopirajan from Vellore RTO and not in the name of Manjunath who is the driver of the offending vehicle. RW.1 came to know about this fact based through the email he had received. Copies of email and the driving licence issued to N.Gopirajan have been marked as Exs.R2 and R3.
8. Thus, licence in question which was issued in Vellore was in the name of N.Gopirajan. Issuing authority has sent a copy of the licence in the name of N.Gopirajan.
9. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the licence held by the driver of the offending vehicle was a fake one and the order directing the owner of the offending vehicle to pay compensation.
Resultantly, this petition must fails and it is accordingly, dismissed.
Registry shall transmit the amount in deposit to the Tribunal for disbursement in accordance with law.
In view of disposal of this petition, I.A. No.1/18 does not survive of consideration and the same is also disposed of.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE HJ