IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.No.1248/2015 [MV] BETWEEN:
M/S. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 2ND FLOOR, JP & DEVI JAMBUKESWAR ARCADE NO.69, MILLERS ROAD BENGALURU 560052 REP. BY REGIONAL CLAIMS MANAGER.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI RAVI S SAMPRATHI, ADV.) AND:
1. JAYAMMA W/O LATE GOVINDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 2. NAGARAJA S/O GOVINDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 3. PARVATHAMMA D/O GOVINDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS 4. C G MOHAN S/O GOVINDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS RESPONDENTS No.1 TO 4 ARE RESIDENTS OF CHOOTTAKYATHANAHALLY VILLAGE HONAKERE HOBLI NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571401.
5. MARRIANKEGOWDA S/O MARIGOWDA MAJOR IN AGE RESIDENT OF KONANUR VILLAGE NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT -571401.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N SURENDRA KUMAR, ADV. FOR R1 TO R4 R5 – SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.11.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.1840/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, NAGAMANGALA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.4,25,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL PAYMENT.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T The insurer is before this Court, aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 27.11.2014 passed in MVC No.1840/2012 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Nagamangala (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short) by which, the liability was saddled on the insurer.
2. Respondents are the claimants who filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the death of one Govindegowda, husband of claimant No.1. It is stated that on 12.04.2012, when the deceased was walking on the left side of the Konnanur-Chottakyathanahalli, an auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-54/2303 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased, due to which, he fell down and sustained fatal injuries. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Government Hospital at Nagamangala and thereafter to Vikram Hospital, Mysore, wherein, he succumbed to the injuries while taking treatment. It is stated that the deceased was doing agricultural work and milk vending business from which, he was earning Rs.15,000/- p.m. He was aged about 64 years as on the date of accident.
3. The second respondent/Insurance Company appeared before the Tribunal and filed its objections stating that the driver of the auto rickshaw was not possessing valid and effective driving licence to drive the auto rickshaw. Further, the insurance company also contended that the auto rickshaw had no permit to ply at the place where the accident has occurred. However, admitted that the auto rickshaw was having coverage of insurance policy.
4. On behalf of the claimants, two witnesses were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 apart from marking the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. The second respondent/insurance company examined one witness as R.W.1 and marked the documents as Ex.R1 to Ex.R5.
5. The Tribunal, on assessing the material on record awarded total compensation of Rs.4,25,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. rejecting the contention of the insurer that the driver of the auto rickshaw had no valid and effective driving licence as well as the contention that the auto rickshaw had no valid permit to ply at the place where the accident had taken place. Aggrieved by the said finding and fastening liability on them, the insurer is before this Court.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/ insurance company and respondents/claimants. Perused the records.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurer submits that the accident occurred on 12.04.2012 involving the auto rickshaw bearing No.KA-54/2303. The driver of the auto rickshaw had no valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident, however, the driver of the auto rickshaw had licence to drive LMV and the said licence was not endorsed to drive transport vehicle. Hence, he submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in fastening the liability on the insurer. However, he submits that accident had taken place 9 Kms. away from the Rural Police Station of Nagamangala. The auto rickshaw had permit only to ply within 8 Kms., of Nagamangala town. As the accident had occurred out of the town limits of Nagamangala, owner of the auto rickshaw had violated the permit conditions. Therefore, the insurer is not liable to pay compensation and Tribunal could not have fastened liability on the insurer.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submits that both the contentions urged by the insurer is not available to the appellant/insurer in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN V/S ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663 and another decision in AMRIT PAUL SINGH AND ANOTHER v/s. TATA (AIG) GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., AND OTHERS reported in (2018) 7 SCC 558 and hence sought for dismissal of the appeal.
9. The occurrence of accident on 12.04.2012 involving the auto rickshaw bearing No.KA-54/2303 and the accidental death of the deceased is not in dispute in this appeal. The first contention of the insurer is that the driver of the auto rickshaw had no valid and effective driving licence to drive transport vehicle as on the date of accident. It is not in dispute that the driver of the auto rickshaw had licence to drive LMV. The driving licence extract is produced and marked as Ex.R3 which clearly indicates that the driver of the auto rickshaw had LMV licence as on the date of accident. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN (supra) has held that if a driver holds licence to drive LMV, there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle and if a driver holds licence to drive LMV, he can drive the vehicle of such type without any endorsement to that effect. In that view of the matter, the said contention is rejected.
10. The next contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the auto rickshaw had no permit to ply in the place where the accident occurred i.e. at Konnanur Chottakyahtanahalli road in Honakere Hobli. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the accident took place 9 Kms. away from the Rural Police Station, but where the town limits ends has not been stated by any one before the Tribunal. There is no evidence or document to indicate the limits of Nagamangala town. In the absence of any material to indicate that the accident occurred outside the town limits, the finding arrived at by the Tribunal is proper and correct. The appellant/insurance company has failed to prove their case by adducing cogent evidence to prove that the accident had taken place outside the town limits of Nagamangala. No error or perversity is found in the judgment and award of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected.
The amount in deposit is directed to be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE mpk/-* CT:bms