Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1400 (KAR)

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Manjunath

2019-06-24

P.G.M.PATIL

body2019
JUDGMENT : P.G.M. Patil, J. The insurer being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 6.3.2013, passed in MVC No.35/2012, by the Addl. MACT and Fast Track Court, Koppal, filed this appeal. 2. It is the case of the claimant before the tribunal that, on 28.4.2011, at about 9.50 a.m., he was proceeding on Kanakagiri Gangavati road near Aralihalli cross. At that time one TATA Ace bearing No.KA-37/8623 driven by respondent No.1 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the claimant's vehicle. Due to the accident the claimant sustained grievous injuries on his head, chin, left arm and fracture of his elbow along with fracture of knee. Immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital, Gangavathi, wherein he was treated initially and thereafter he took treatment at SDM Hospital, Dharwad, as inpatient for 9 days and other hospitals and spent huge amount for treatment. Prior to the accident he was working as mestri and getting salary of Rs. 10,000/- per month. Due to the accidental injuries, he has become disabled. Therefore he claimed compensation of Rs. 15,13,973/- against the driver, owner and insurer of the of fending vehicle. 3. In pursuance of notice, respondents appeared before the tribunal. Respondent No.1 has not chosen to file any objections. Respondent No.2 owner of the vehicle has filed the written statement denying that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. Further, respondent No.1 is having valid driving license and his vehicle is duly insured with respondent No.3 and in case of any liability, it may be fixed against respondent No.3. 4. Respondent No.3 insurer filed the written statement denying the allegations made against him. He has further contended that respondent No.1 was not holding a valid driving license at the time of accident. The driver and owner of the motorcycle are also necessary parties. He is not liable to pay compensation as there is breach of policy conditions. Hence the claim petition be dismissed. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the tribunal framed issues. In support of the claim petition, the claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and one witness as PW.2 and also got marked 23 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.23. Respondents have got examined two witnesses as RW.1 and RW.2 and got marked 3 documents as Exs.R.1 to R.3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the tribunal framed issues. In support of the claim petition, the claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and one witness as PW.2 and also got marked 23 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.23. Respondents have got examined two witnesses as RW.1 and RW.2 and got marked 3 documents as Exs.R.1 to R.3. The learned member of the tribunal after hearing both the parties, passed the impugned judgment, awarding a compensation of Rs. 1,89,006/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition tillits deposit. Respondents No.2 and 3 were jointly and severally held liable to pay the compensation. Respondent No.3 insurer was directed to deposit the compensation amount. 6. The insurer being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award, has filed this appeal on the grounds that the driver of the of fending vehicle was possessing licence to drive LMV (NT) only and he was not possessing a valid driving license to drive the vehicle in question which is a goods carrying commercial vehicle. Therefore there is a breach of policy condition and as such the liability saddled against him is liable to be set aside. The quantum of compensation is also disputed. 7. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 8. A short question which arises for consideration before this Court in this appeal is as to whether the insurer has made out grounds to set aside the liability saddled against him and to reduce the compensation. 9. The main contention of the appellant insurer is that the driver of the of fending vehicle namely respondent No.1 was holding a licence to drive LMV (NT) vehicle and that he did not possess a valid driving license to drive LMV transport vehicle which is involved in the accident and therefore there is a violation of terms and conditions of the policy. On this ground he is seeking to avoid his liability. This contention of the insurer cannot be accepted 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 the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the driver having valid and effective driving license to drive LMV non transport vehicle need not obtain a special endorsement for driving LMV transport or passenger vehicle. In the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the driver having valid and effective driving license to drive LMV non transport vehicle need not obtain a special endorsement for driving LMV transport or passenger vehicle. In the present case, it is admitted that respondent No.1 driver of the of fending vehicle was holding a valid and effective driving license to drive the LMV (NT). It is also admitted that the of fending vehicle is a TATA Ace, which is also a light motor vehicle. Therefore in view of the judgment stated supra, there is no violation of policy conditions on the ground that the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving license. 10. The other contention raised by the appellant insurer is that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is on higher side. The evidence of PW.2 the doctor who has issued the disability certificate in respect of the claimant goes to show that the claimant is suffering from permanent disability of 33% of the particular limb and the tribunal has considered the permanent disability of 10% of the whole body, which is proper and correct. The compensation awarded under other heads is also just and proper. Therefore the impugned judgment and award does not call for any interference. Hence, the point for consideration is answered accordingly. 11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The amount of compensation deposited by the appellant/insurer shall be transmitted to the tribunal forthwith, for disbursement. The order as to deposit and disbursement as passed by the tribunal holds good.