IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6310/2014 (MV) BETWEEN UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH BHATKAL, REPRESENTED BY DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, JEWEL PLAZA, I FLOOR, MARUTHI VEETHIKA, UDUPI -576101.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI A N KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND 1. K SHAHID S/O MOHAMMED KATHAL, NOW AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O NOOR COLONY, KATHAL HOUSE, MURDESHWARA, BHATKAL-581 320, NOW R/AT CHIKENSAL ROAD, KUNDAPURA-576 201.
2. SADULLAH DAMDA, NOW AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, M/S RAFAT AGENCIES, ANWAR COMPLEX, NH-17, BHATKAL-581 320.
... RESPONDENTS (R2-SERVED;
R1-SERVICE OF NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT AS PER ORDER DTD. 02.01.2018) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:30.04.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.67/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE & AMACT, UDUPI (SITTING AT KUNDAPURA) AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.89,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING – I.A., THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company challenging the liability fixed on it while passing the judgment and award in MVC No. 67/2011, dated 30.04.2014 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge and MACT, Udupi.
2. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of 88,870/- rounded off at Rs.89,000/-, with interest at 6% per annum to the injured/claimant i.e. respondent No.1 herein.
3. The only contention raised by the appellant is that the vehicle which was insured with the appellant herein was a Mini Lorry, a transport vehicle and but the driver of the said Lorry was not possessing any valid and effective Driving License to drive a transport vehicle, on the other hand, he was possessing a License to drive LMV(NT). Hence, there is breach of policy conditions and therefore, the Tribunal was not proper in fixing the liability on the appellant/Insurance Company.
4. The question involved in this appeal has already been decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. – reported in AIR (2017)6 SCW Page 3668. In view of the same the contention raised by the learned counsel cannot be accepted.
5. It is also to be noted that in the appeal filed by the claimant, in MVC No.5688/2014, the matter was settled before the Lok Adalat and the claimant was awarded an additional sum of Rs.57,000/- than what was awarded by the Tribunal. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in the present appeal and accordingly the same is dismissed.
I.A. Nos.1 and 2 of 2014 does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, both the IAs are dismissed.
Amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal.
SBS* Sd/- JUDGE