Sri Muniraju V vs Tata Aig General Insurance on 28 August, 2018

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Muniraju V vs Tata Aig General Insurance on 28 August, 2018

Bench: Krishna S.Dixit

                          1



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


       DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2018

                       BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT


             M.F.A. NO. 5428 OF 2014 (MV)

BETWEEN:

SRI MUNIRAJU V
S/O VENKATAPPA
NOW AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT NO. 39,
ANAGALAPURA
MENASI, DODDABALLAPURA
BENGALURU RURAL-561203

                                        ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI. N R RANGEGOWDA, ADVOCATE )

AND:

  1. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE
     COMPANY LTD.,
     2ND FLOOR,
     JP & DEVI JAMBUKESHWAR,
     NO. 69, MILLER'S ROAD,
     BENGALURU -560052

  2. PARVATHAMMA
     W/O SANNAPPA
     NO. 65,
     VIJINAPURA
     N R LAYOUT
     BENGALURU -560087

  3. S SYED PASHA
     S/O IBRAHIM SAB
                              2

     C/O SHIVARUDRAPPA
     ROJIPURA
     DODDABALLAPUR-561203

                                          ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. A RAVI SHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
    R2 & 3 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)

    THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.03.2014 PASSED IN
MVC NO. 5145/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIV A.S.C.J
AND XXII A.C.M.M AND MACT, BENGALURU , PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-


                  JUDGMENT

This appeal by the claimant lays a challenge to the judgment and award dated 05.03.2014 made by the M.A.C.T. Bengaluru, allowing M.V.C. No.5145/2012, whereby a compensation of Rs.1,19,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum subject to the stipulation as to bank deposit has been awarded. The challenge is on the ground that the respondent-insurer could not have been absolved from the award liability.

2. The fact matrix of the case as to the happening of the accident on 04.08.2012 involving rash and negligent 3 driving of he offending Tata Ace vehicle bearing Registration No. KA-08-3912 and the consequential injuries to the claimant is not in dispute.

3. The only contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant is that the M.A.C.T. could not have absolved the respondent-insurer from the award liability on the ground of absence of Transport Endorsement on the driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle. The learned counsel banks upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED reported in AIR 2017 SC 3668, wherein the Apex Court has held that absence of Transport Endorsement on the driving license is not per se a ground available to the insurer for escaping from the award liability. This Court too has followed the said judgment in M.F.A. No.8462/2010 c/w M.F.A.No.5526/2009 disposed of on 10.08.2018, even when the decision in Mukund Dewangan Case is being considered for reference to Larger Bench.

4. In view of the above, this appeal succeeds; the impugned judgment and award are modified fastening the 4 liability on the first respondent insurer. In all other aspects, the judgment and award are left unaltered.

Sd/-

JUDGE Snb/

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court