IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.NO.2372 OF 2015 (MV) BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER, SHRIRAM GENERAL INS.CO.LTD., E-8, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPURA, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN, STATE.
NOW REP. BY THE BRANCH MANAGER, SHRIRAM GENERAL INS.CO.LTD., 3RD FLOOR, S AND S CORNER BUILDING, OPP. BOWRING AND LAND CURZON HOSPITAL, BANGALORE-01.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRADEEP.B, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SHESHAPPA GOWDA, S/O LATE SUBAPPA GOWDA, NOW AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/A BANNUR VILLAGE, VIJAYAHALLI TALUK, PUTTER TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT-574239.
2. S.M. ABDULLA, S/O S. MAMMU BEARY, NOW AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT G.H. MANZIL, GOONADKA HOUSE, SAMPAJE VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT-574239.
(R1 – SERVED UNREPRESENTED) ... RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.10.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.131/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 5TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, D.K., MANGALORE, SITTING AT PUTTUR, D.K, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.50,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Even though the matter is listed for orders for taking steps in respect of respondent No.2, with the consent of the learned counsel for the appellant, the matter is heard for admission and disposed off by this order.
2. The insurer is in appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 17/10/2014 in M.V.C.No.131/2013 on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge & Member, Additional MACT, D.K, Mangalore, sitting at Puttur, D.K, by which the insurer is directed to pay compensation at the first instance with liberty to recover the same from the respondent-owner.
3. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation for the accidental injuries suffered by him in a road traffic accident. It is stated that on 16-8-2012, when the claimant was walking on the extreme left side of the mud road at Bannur Janatha Colony, Lorry bearing No.KA-21-A-
6987, driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the claimant. Due to which, the claimant suffered grievous injuries. He was aged 61 years as on the date of accident and was earning Rs.9,000/- per month as a tailor.
4. On issuance of notice, respondent-Insurer appeared before the Tribunal and filed its written statement denying the petition averments and contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry in occurrence of the accident. It is further stated that the claimant without observing moving vehicles on the road suddenly interned in the road and invited the accident. Further it is contended that the driver of the Lorry did not possess valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident and there is violation of policy condition.
5. The claimant examined himself as PW-1 and marked 11 documents Ex.P-1 to P-11. On behalf of the respondent-insurer, RW-1 was examined and two documents Ex.R-1 & R-2 were marked.
6. The Tribunal, based on the material placed before it, awarded total compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, on the following heads:
1. General damages (Pain and agony, Loss of future amenities and enjoyment of life) 2. Medical expenses & other incidental charges 3. Pecuniary Loss (during treatment period and in future) Amount in (Rs.) 30,000 10,000 10,000 Total 50,000 Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were jointly and severally held liable to pay the compensation. The respondent-insurer was directed to deposit the compensation amount at the first instance and liberty was given to recover the same from respondent No.1-owner. Aggrieved by the said direction, the insurer is before this Court in this appeal.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the material placed on record.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the driver of the Lorry had license to drive the light motor vehicle, whereas he was driving heavy motor vehicle at the time of accident. As the driver of the offending lorry did not possess a valid and effective driving license to drive the lorry, the Tribunal committed an error in directing the insurer to pay the compensation at the first instance with liberty to recover the same from owner of the lorry. Thus, prayed to allow the appeal.
9. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the material placed on record, the only point which arises for consideration in the facts and circumstances of the case is as to whether the Tribunal is justified in directing the insurer to pay the compensation at the first instance with liberty to recover the same from respondent No.1-owner of the lorry. Answer to the said point is in the affirmative for the following reasons.
10. The only contention urged by the insurer is that the driver of the Lorry did not possess a valid and effective driving license to drive the transport vehicle (heavy motor vehicle). But he was possessing only LMV license. It is not the case of the insurer that the driver had no license at all to drive the vehicle but he was holding only LMV license to drive the light motor vehicle, not a license to drive transport vehicle/heavy motor vehicle, to prove the same Ex.R-2-particulars of DL is produced. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PAPPU AND OTHERS vs. VINOD KUMAR LAMBA AND ANOTHER reported in (2018) 3 SCC 208, has held that the insurer is liable to pay compensation at the first instance with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle under such circumstances. Following the said decision, the ground urged by the appellant-insurer would not survive for consideration.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
The amount in deposit be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE SMJ