IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN MFA No.5230/2017 (MV) BETWEEN :
TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, HUBLI, REP. BY THE ZONAL OFFICE, NO.69, 2ND FLOOR, JP & DEVI JAMBUKESWAR ARCADE, MILLERS ROAD, BENGALURU-560052, DULY REPRESENTED BY ITS ZONAL CLAIMS MANAGER, SRI ALOK KUMAR GUPTA. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI A. RAVISHANKAR, ADV.) AND:
1. BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O. KARIYAPPA, COOLIE, R/O. HANUMANTHA NAGARA, GAJJENAHALLI VILLAGE, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK-577448.
2. ABDUL KHADAR AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL ALEEM, R/O. HOSAHONNAPURA, HOSALLI, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK-577202.
3. SAVAISAIFULLA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, S/O. SAVAI JAFFAR, R/O. SAVAI PALYA, NEAR MASJID, SHIVAMOGGA CITY-577201. ... RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.03.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.907/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT-VI AT SHIVAMOGGA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1,15,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS DEPOSIT.
THIS MFA IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING :
JUDGMENT The appellant, TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited, has challenged the legality of the award dated 30.03.2017, passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Shivamogga, in MVC.No.907/2014, whereby for the injuries suffered by Mr. Basappa, the learned Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.1,15,000/-, along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 30.01.2014, at about 4.00 p.m., Mr. Basappa was traveling in a Bus, bearing registration No.KA-20/A-1192, from Shivamogga to his native place Gejjenahalli village. While the bus was near the Subbaiah Hospital, an autorickshow, bearing registration No.KA-14/B-0832, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the bus. Due to the said accident, the glass of the window pane of the bus shattered; the petitioner sustained injuries on his right hand, righter shoulder and right ribs. Immediately he was shifted to Mc.Gann Hospital, Shimoga. He was treated as an inpatient from 30.01.2014 to 08.02.2014. Subsequently, he filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. In order to support his case, he examined himself as a witness, and submitted twelve documents. On the other hand, the respondents examined two witnesses, and submitted seven documents. After appreciating the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal granted the compensation as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal by the Insurance Company.
3. Both the learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the only contention raised by the Insurance Company is with regard to its liability. According to the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, although the driver of the autorickshaw had a valid driving licence, but the driving licence did not bear a specific endorsement that he is permitted to drive an autorickshaw. Therefore, he did not have a valid licence to drive an autorickshaw.
4. However, both the learned counsel for the parties unanimously agree that the issue “whether a specific endorsement is required in a valid driving licence for LMV or not?” has recently been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited [AIR 2017 SC 3668]. According to the Apex Court, a valid driving licence for driving a LMV is not required to have a specific endorsement with regard to the kind of vehicle which can be driven by the driver. Therefore, the Insurance Company cannot absolve itself of the liability to pay the compensation on the ground that the driving licence lacked a specific endorsement with regard to the kind of vehicle which could be driven by the driver.
5. Since the issue has already been settled by the Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra), the contention being raised by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is clearly unacceptable.
For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the present Appeal. It is, hereby, dismissed.
The amount deposited by the insurance Company before this Court shall be transferred, forthwith, to the Tribunal.
Np/-
Sd/- JUDGE