Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1395 (KAR)

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shankarappa

2019-06-24

P.G.M.PATIL

body2019
JUDGMENT : P.G.M. Patil, J. The insurer and the claimants being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 21.2.2012, passed in MVC No.41/2010, by the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Dharwad, have filed these appeal and cross objection. 2. It is the case of the claimants before the tribunal that, the son of the petitioners Sachin Lamani was studying in Nursery School at Shigigatti of Kalaghatagi taluk. On 21.1.2010 he was standing in front of his house. At that time at about 5.30 p.m., a vehicle Maxi Cab bearing No.KA-35/A-128 proceeding from Upper Street driven in a rash and negligent manner and while taking reverse, dashed against the deceased causing grievous injuries, due to which he succumbed on the spot. The accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the said Maxi Cab. Therefore the claimants filed the claim petition seeking compensation against the owner and insurer of the of fending vehicle. 3. In pursuance of notice, respondents No.1 and 2 appeared before the tribunal. Respondent No.1 has not chosen to file any objections. Respondent No.2/the insurance company has filed the written statement contending that the liability if any is subject to condition of policy terms. The driver of the of fending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence. Therefore he is not liable to pay compensation. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the tribunal framed issues. In support of their claim petition, claimant No.1 got examined himself as PW.1 and also got marked 5 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.5. Respondents have not adduced any oral evidence nor produced any documentary evidence. The learned member of the tribunal after hearing both the parties, passed the impugned judgment, awarding a compensation of Rs. 1,80,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. 5. The insurer being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award, has filed MFA No.20163/2013 on the grounds that the tribunal has not considered that the driver of the of fending vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question and therefore the liability saddled against the appellant insurer is liable to be set aside. 6. The claimants being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, have filed MFA CROB No.100100/2014, seeking enhancement of compensation. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the insurer and the claimants. 8. 6. The claimants being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, have filed MFA CROB No.100100/2014, seeking enhancement of compensation. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the insurer and the claimants. 8. A short question which arises for consideration before this Court in these matters is as to whether the insurer has made out grounds to set aside the liability saddled against him and as to whether the claimants have made out grounds for enhancement of compensation. 9. The only contention raised by the insurer to set aside the liability saddled against him is that the driver of the of fending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle in question as on the date of accident. It is submitted that the driver of the of fending vehicle had a driving license to drive LMV (NT). However the vehicle involved in the accident is a Maxi Cab, LMV passenger vehicle. Therefore this contention of the appellant/insurer does not survive for consideration in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2017) AIR SC 3668. In view of the said judgment, the driver holding a valid and effective driving license to drive LMV (NT) need not obtain a special endorsement for driving LMV transport or passenger vehicle. Therefore the insurer has not made out any grounds to set aside the liability saddled against him. 10. The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that compensation towards medical expenses has not been awarded by the tribunal and the same may be considered. As per the averments made in the claim petition itself, the deceased sustained severe injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Therefore there was no occasion to meet any medical expenses. The tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,80,000/- relying on the judgment in the case of S.Sana Ulla and another vs. A.R.Shivashankar,2008 KantMAC 364 (Kant). In the said case by relying on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., vs. Satendar and others awarded a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- for the death of the children having aged group of 5-10 years. Therefore the compensation awarded by the tribunal does not call for any interference by this Court. 11. Ltd., vs. Satendar and others awarded a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- for the death of the children having aged group of 5-10 years. Therefore the compensation awarded by the tribunal does not call for any interference by this Court. 11. Under these circumstances, this Court holds that both the appeals are liable to be dismissed. Hence, the point for consideration is answered accordingly. 12. In the result, both the appeal and the cross objection are dismissed. The amount of compensation deposited in MFA No.20163/2013 shall be transmitted to the tribunal forthwith, for disbursement.