Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 219 (KAR)

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Prema

2010-02-18

ARAVIND KUMAR

body2010
JUDGMENT Aravind Kumar, J.— Though the matter is listed for admission, since the matter is of the year 2007 and Trial Court records have been secured, by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. The Insurance Company is in appeal questioning the correctness and legality of the judgment and award passed by the Fast Track Court-Ill and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mysore, in M.V.C. No. 1379 of 2006, dated 29th June, 2007. The facts in this appeal are not disputed, namely the accident in question and the death of Balu, whose legal representatives were the claimants before the Tribunal. The only question in this appeal which has been assailed by the Insurance Company is with regard to liability of the Insurance Company. 3. I have heard Mr. Lingaraj, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Mr. Mohan Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for Respondents 1 to 5. 4. Mr. Lingaraj would contend that Tribunal was in error in holding that driver of the offending vehicle was possessing an effective and valid licence and contends that there was no valid endorsement made in the said licence authorising him to drive the vehicle in question, which is a goods authorickshaw. In support of his contention, he draws the attention of the Court to National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kusum Rai and Others, AIR 2006 SC 3440 . 5. Per contra, Mr. Mohan Kumar would contend that Tribunal has in fact considered the very same contention now raised in the present appeal, and has found on facts, the said contention is erroneous, and accordingly, seeks for dismissal of the appeal. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, the following point arises for consideration: Whether as on the date of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was possessing valid and effective driving license? 7. The Respondent-Insurance Company had produced a photostat copy of the driving licence of Mr. Ezaz Pasha, who was the driver of the offending vehicle. The said driving licence has been issued by the Jurisdictional Regional Transport Officer, Mysore, and at page No. 8, it is found that an endorsement has been made, which reads as under: Authorised to drive transport vehicle No. 1101. and the said endorsement has been renewed from time to time and it was valid upto 30th January, 2008. The said driving licence has been issued by the Jurisdictional Regional Transport Officer, Mysore, and at page No. 8, it is found that an endorsement has been made, which reads as under: Authorised to drive transport vehicle No. 1101. and the said endorsement has been renewed from time to time and it was valid upto 30th January, 2008. Though an endorsement is made in Page 6 which reads "T.M.P.V.", it cannot be said that the said Ezaz Pasha did not possess an effective and valid driving licence to drive the goods auto vehicle as on the date of the accident in view of the endorsement made at page 8. A perusal of the award would also depict that, as on the date of the accident i.e., 27th August, 2006 the Tribunal found on scrutiny of evidence that the driver of the offending vehicle in fact possessed driving licence which was valid and effective, namely to drive the goods authorickshaw. 8. On re-appreciation of the evidence and scrutiny of Ext. R-4, I am not inclined to acceede to the prayer made by the learned Counsel for the Appellant, and accordingly, the said contention raised with reference to non-possession of valid effective driving licence is rejected. No other grounds are urged by the learned Counsel for the Appellant. 9. In view of the above, the following order is passed. 10. The appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits. 11. The amount deposited before this Court, is ordered to be retransmitted to the Tribunal forthwith, by the registry.