The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs M Sureshappa on 27 May, 2011

[Cites 5, Cited by 11]

Karnataka High Court

The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs M Sureshappa on 27 May, 2011

Equivalent citations: 2011 AAC 3034 (KAR), 2011 (4) AIR KANT HCR 200, (2012) 2 TAC 696, (2012) 1 KANT LJ 60, (2013) 3 ACC 91, (2013) 2 ACJ 1306

Bench: H.S.Kempanna

F J

R-2 - SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT V/0 DTD:18.4. 11 .
BY WAY {BF PAPER PUBLICATION} 

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 1?3(1) GF Mv Acfr._ac§A1i=§s'ii.
THE Ju9<:;E:ME:NT AND AWARD DATE:D_,--a24}G31;2.Qf:;8_ ~_
PASSED IN MVC No.13'?/2005 ON THE: §'__II;i:, 0111"» CI'J1L_«
JUDGE? {SR.DN.) & MACT, HAREHAR,  .A;X?\2I;3;.1f<13'I:~:V:;VV A "
COMPENSATION OF Rs-.2,01,20(}/--  

6%P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PEFITIQN-._fm;L PA'fMEN'I';   .

THIS APPEAL CO1\/IINC-- C).N F<*:>'RV AD1\§.>i.1S$.:<:»N TRIS 'V T'

DAY, THE COURT DELIV OLLOWIPJG 
Though this ma§t_¢Vf' with
Consent of   Parties as
records   taken up for final
disp0s%1i."V' 1 H V V 
  '  by the appeliani/insurer

cha1I;e:1gir1g ﬁ3.eA v1i'2i'bi1{?,y "fastened an them to satisfy the

  ftgrther directing them to recovar from the

fi.rs!t_ rés-;i'0:;Vd:éht'7owner.

" {if the sake Qf canvenience the parties in this

  igaouid be referred ta by their rankings as they

'  aige arrzzyeci in the étéairr: petiticjn,

/

:\ ,/

" Esi/"



4. The <::1aimant~Smt.Sarma Durgamma fiiedplaim

petition u/5.166 of the MN'. Act Claiming Comp.gr:.é}ati:3h

in respect of the personal injuries which sh"e'--s:,:A$té;§r:é.:i-h '

in 231 motor accident that t0ok.;p}a_<:¢ 9:: u

about 5.30 pm' at Mylar  

autorickshaw bearing 2'7_?'€3:  by h' V

the first I"€SpO1'1d€I1'[, 3.I1dV,ii"$.§}'1"(fV(§»_ VV"iU:i'"'Ch§-: Jecond

respondent at the reIeVah;i'p'Ci;bLt:»'of _ii:I:e,.  -.

5. It is that Shfi is aged about 65 3/':<'::--ar$. earning mere than ?5,00C';/~ wag-.,haJ;€ and healthy prior ta 'ihfi accident; 530 ptmg while she was;'f:2ark<§ti'n.g_ ' Vhhvegetablcits at Mylar village, the 'v:auﬁ.é1'ichh.éi1é.ia.r._vbearing NOKA 27/2?'76 <:i:'ive;1 by its h'£é.ri§%_¢r speed in a rash and negiigemt manner ssarrik? anﬁ '»:§éshe{:I against hay. Or: account of the same ._shi:..suS"tained grievous injuries an her righi hag for _' éixhhich she 'wok treatment by Spenéihg hugs mansy. V' Eﬁsspité {he same, hex righi; leg wag ampzziaied as sgmth shs E5 aznahis? U} C'§:11"?{':«,7 an 2:v§€ahi:i£;:: which has I"€Sli1t€ii1 in less 0f izzcozzze £0 he}: Rance, she praygd for graztzi of cempensatien fmn'; 'siize resgozzéezzis. . '

8. After service sf $184386, the resparzrisgiﬁsy *:5.%hs:f; are'? the €}'Wi1€I" and insurar of the ai;t0Ifi::k§3i'i;3.1$z_i:1x%{;}.i:g_é the accidfznt appeared and: £7:4m'1'£f3'S'i"_£:f.:'{'2i' of'; {fie Claimant. It was first 1'€Sp{}i'1d€nt/OWHEE? g;;,§i1a:azen$ra:: that the accident has not taken. the fault cf the driver eiher hané, it was duétfc; herself. It is furthaiia 'f;E;a:'§ﬂ}".%_aghavendra is the $011 if the firsf: re§3:z%;1d§:it'- have valid and effective drivigigf iécencé' iﬁtirivér the aute involved in the accident is;=31_;;}3§. Haspet. 03:: the slate e:>f accident ens pcassessed Valid driving Eicence was . a<:<:é';r2p'::nj§ri:ig ihe saiﬁ Raghavendra W339 was driving _ {=:i;€L..aui{§ .a:1d W313 heiping him. As Raghaxzezidra W210 .' égéé {:13 driver Qf ihs amiss 33; {he {£326 of aeczidazzi: dié " ";;>'§s3e:35 vaiid licezzéa '£328 firs? resgaﬁdsni hag 22$':

camzzfgiiisé any hyeaaia 43%" $13 terms aztzé zzazzziiiiezas, Gf E the poiicy. It is further contended as his Vehicle had been insureci with the seecxnd respendent, if..'fa1f""-.ein_y reason he is held liable to pay any eompe:i--sa{§en"

same be saddled on them and»~~s_s< dismissal of the petition as against tnefn. 1

7. The second responde'i::£fin_surei'~-eise cnntended that the accident in _btaken p1aCe on account of rashend 'ehe auto by its driver. T who was driving seeident is the son of the firisli had no valid and effective driving neenee 'to: in question and in spite of the 'ss.meuas., fifst respondent has allowed him to tn e vefxi.e1e, he has Committed breach of the terms éznéi._e.en£§i'_£:§e1§;s'ef ihe peiicy issued by then}. They alse furfherv~..esr;{endeCE as the state has been plied beyond sj4ur:{Vs"<:.1ietic:m for which it had been permitted to piy .' the permit, the owner has eomrniited breach of ":£*:Te eerrns ens eendiiiens sf the permit. The}; else denied 2133, nine? 8.V€1"EE1€E3£S made by me elsiznaréi in he? petition and contended that they are not liable to pay..__any compensation and accordingly. sought for diemieeéfefeﬂf the petition'

8. The Tribunal on the pleadings framed the fo1I0win_gissi;ee'--:_~ ' ' A 'V I, Whether the petitie'f'ze.fe»proves.V_ihcihi: eﬁ: 072004 at abou:e..V.5.3Qe'p.--e§;* .Myz§r'aeeV:ziage when she was at that k time the driver of Reg.

   negiigentiy
and  ie    '

2', V¢--'.'?eet:i":+:'r<._»'-jﬁetiiiener proves her age; mcjnthly expenses & nature of _ .éfg7ur£e:s?_ V. A V' s ' 2 ., 'Vv??.eEh1er the respondent No.1 proves that the 1 eeeurred ciue ﬁe negﬁigeni (165 of the v_.~pe :'§§iener herself as suddenig she eressed * A5316? road?

V' V£fhei'he:' {he respendeni 369.2 preeee ihaé since {he peziééegze?" has not diseieeeﬁ {he /ye egg: //

32.//' name of {he driver, the petition ierzabie?' 5, Whether :he petitioner e;':é:€':£e:ii'v, j23;".V eompensaiion? If so, j}'<::.tn u,2.hejr7i'-_::z;%zd*--uji:::u:_ f is the quantum?

6, What order or;_Decree_?.. A' Additional 9 "I. pmves that de_l§lger<~<.::feig?_; ceﬁlowed his son to cérive hgzd not possessed with «&V licence and thus it is not eeeipensation?

2. uWhetF:e:j ::he éiifeld respondent is not Eéable to eeﬁmeneeifon since there is violation cf V _ " ' :?s:3'n_;;i£€iC-{atepfpermii'? Vfizefher S.M.Raghaz;endra is a necessary peefigvie the petition?"

V' The eiaimant in supgeri; ef her ease get herself as PW} and predzgeed 2'? éeeumente which V came is be rtzazéied es e:<hi¥:§i:s 'PE is ;?2?'. 011 behalf of the respondents, the first . ewner got himself examined as R'§v*~1.~,._':"~.,hi;a.: «;3e;{_i Raghavendra the driver of the A:u_to:ieel;§she:\x;*..irtvCslx;?'e.cl the accident, as RW2 and ene Puttaﬁpa get produced three docurneztte whichleame: to be marked as R1 to R3. The secenﬁl'--reepondeixtt-hisurance Company in support 'bf_e'thei:Vj?e'a$e=v:e2§amir1ed one Mr. N.B.BalaValli,v ..:VR7I'Q Haven: ' R';/V4 and one Mr.R.Y.Naye»l<§ ' their Company as RVV5: ﬁocuments which came to be ngarkecl .t(_'> R10.

10. Tt'ivb1li;_1al~.--"'len considering the oral and eifiden.ce on record held that the accident 'l:i:lqt1eetl'<53i'«haa_ taken place on account of the rash and ﬁegligent eiertxéing ef the autorickehaw by its driver viz.

--V Raghajv'e::cl:"a and as such the claimant has established Kll'ﬂ--.lVact:Qhahle negligence. Further, the 'Tribunal leaking to

-- theletficlence ef the elaimant and the éecumeﬁte glaeecl " '52; recent awardecl a 32123:: sf Rel2,Ql,2®S,f'~ with ttxtereet /.2' ///J 9 at 6% pa. fmm the date of the petition under various heads.

lt further held that the drive} Cf mvolved in the accident did riot ::_peeseeSVA'x!alid'v effective driving licence, the Qwner has 2:lsev~f_viela'ied': the " V permit Conditions as ;__tl1e xfehlele._i11._VL'qu.est§rd1f: hes been plied beyond the perrf1i'tl;ed. llxere was no Valid fitness certificate to ply However, drawing its conditions of the policy that as the driver did that satisfies the require1;I'1S:V_I1':0f aecordingly, saddled the liabiliiy of ﬁagrmerit df eompensation on the appellant ll"insi:rer5*"andA~further directed to recover the same from ﬂied_fi:'iefﬁ'*:iesfie:1'{;§er1t~e»vv:1er. ffllile appellam;~insurar1ee C0. being aggrieved ef "filled---.lial:$'ility fastened on them to satisfy the award; ilﬁilalllly and directing them :0 reeever from ihe first " "i*eeper2eie:1i~{;ver:e1* are :3: appeal befere this Cezzri. /» 2.1 _/X g ~ / *~ / §"4/b'/ it}

12. The learned ceurisel fer the submitted that the Tribunal has erre-di 'iii appreciating the evidence OI'1v-"I"€'CC}I"'(:l*l_4 iri V vi-".1'igIit--.& perepective which clearly goes tr; shew the. <':ir'iizei*,_ did not possess Valid ariLi.,_4l"e.ffectiire__ iice1~1:ce.,"aiidl by "

wrongly interpreting ceriri-ititnfisuiriccxlrticratred in the policy EXR4 despite is liable, erred in directitig.the we award and recover Elaboratirig his the driver of the offeridirigga.iiter:c.lraha'ur_"'did j not possess Valid and effective ..V_d'i'i.virigll In this connection he submitted the vehicle involved in the accident is a V' vehicle wliilcli"'iS a transport Vehicle. T he driver at accident did not possess Valid and effe__ctivev_ licence tc drive the said transport llvirehicie By Virtue of what is contemplated Li/3,37 cf the £988 a perseii whe possess [LE to drive a transport Veiiieie sheuld iiave §esseesed a iicence tr} V' drive a iieii-trariepert Veiiicie i.e. LMKI' fer a peried cf 4/') / §:'.

éx:/'// II atieast one year. In the present case, the ciiiireejrf the offending vehicle had obtained hie Iieerree' LMV for the peried from 25.1.2505'~'rg:>"--,2-ﬂit;i.i,:iZ€}:iS*:Vi.e.."1 subsequent te the date «at aeeieie_r1t._i{ﬂ7hieh..e.ir21e«.

place on 9.332004. That the i' V driver of the offending,Vehicle-«--tiiti--riot peisﬂsess }z':':11id and effective driving iieerieeiiitiit'thejetitoriekshaw in question. if that__ is As::',* and award of the iieibiiity on them by virtue been incorporated in EX.R4 be sustained as the learnershiit:_e11eex'p<::isee--eeee Jby the driver of the vehicle ir1VQ,1_§veCiu.i11 thAe_ aeei<ient is not in compliance with ?_effthe Motor Vehicles Act. In other words, he rate as the driver of the auteriekshaw dicI'""r:0t./__"}:)e:~§eess valid and effective iieenee, no liability n""'«.__V"*eet11dhefire been fastened on the appeiiar1t~Ir:s. Co. to A the ewerei and therefore, the impugned judgment erisd award cannot be Sustained, rieriee, it eaiie for V' iriterfereriee,

13. Per contra, the learned eounsei for 3 N0.1~0wner Supported the impugned award paseed by the tribunal 14, The seconﬁ r.r:Sp§>r1de'r1t§ve1ain:;§if::vﬁﬁhetilgh Served has remained unrepreeenetedu.

15. Taking the evidence and the documents' that arises for my _ A t V jifdgment and award of the liability on the appellant i1'1suranee=__<:0.v is the award and thereafter to reeQx_%?ei* froth the owner-respondent No.1 is A .sustai:1ah1e?"~., A E6; .F}ég<.:ts are net Er: dispute. The eiaimant having Vmet accident. injuries sustained, treatment takeh, VA j:."V':3.1:2..oti.--f:t spent for the same is net disputed. The .»vq:ia;htum ef eempensatioﬁ that has been awarded by the trihzmal ES else net éiegsuted by either ef the partiee in thie aepeel 'E'he theee {i€:>§1E€E1't§S§1 0;? the agspeﬁahtw /' V E3 insurer is that as {the driver of the 0ffe:i<:%'§i3g- Autorickshaw did not possess vaiid and effeeijée' -ci_:f-ixfixzg _ Heenee ta drive the same at the time of rye iiability can be fastened on there'.

the vehicle involved in the aeeid e:1¥: 'i.s a 'veBie}e '-- which is a transpert vehicle,

17. Section 3 contemplates necessity for driving :»

(1) N0 .a1n<uj't§oi' Vvehicle in any pubiieeAV. p1'aeei.; "a11'11.Ves-S' he""'}e1E:)1ds an effective cisixring . "to him auihorising hifﬁ»._t O and no person shall A. -soLdri'{f<:t Vehicie other than (other ._(ez meiUr------'eVab or motor cycle) hired for use or rented under any scheme sub~see*:1Gri {2} eff eeetien 75) A his driving licence Specifically entitles }:";i:f% Se 'ﬁe do.

V' {2}-._The eenditione subject is which subeeeticzn E) eheli net appiy to a pereen. receiving inetruetien in drieing 3 meter vehieie she}! 14 be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government.

A reading of Section 3 of the Act w0u1drA~'§0 ﬁe~. ~ that 3. person in order to drive a rn,0t0:jVe1r1'ie1'e" a pt;_1'b1ie,_ V' plaee must hold a valid and e:ffee*§iVeTV issued to him authorising ff1:e:__\:'ve_1j1ie1e':..§ii'1d {hat " V person is not entitled :9 drixfe----a:"tre£r1Lspor{'vehicle other than a motor Cab or m0fOr'eye1e» his own use or rented under sehethe"rrra.de"«z'1r1_der':s1ib~seetion (2) of section 175 Vd-rixzi1';:.6 i§_ee.r1e_e' specifically entitles him so t'O"dU.._V ':: ' ' Since' .the*. v'ehie1'e,_edmitteCHy involved in the aceid.jer1:..is a gznsds vehicle which is a transport Vehicle, Verze E1as. t0; ':>.btain a Valid and effective licence issued L'fre'1'%:;_ %i:A1":e:'£*:_£>:i1'§>;'ei€er:¥; authority. Err this ease, the materia} er; teem: reizeais that the Vehicle in questien invesived in Vsﬁrzereeeieient was being driver: by one Raghavendra who . is exssmrirzeé as RW2. Aeeerdirzg is him he gessessed 3 " "§§ejarr:ee:*.s iieenee issued 333: the R.T.(:i. Eiospet. 15 Section 7 of the Act contemplates that any person driving a transport vehicle earmct be granted 1_'eecri1e're licence unless he helde the cirivirzg Iicer1ce";:e ' non» tranepcrt Vehicle i.e. light meter. Vehie1e"fe:' r:£i:1_efasxi;., one year. Section 7 of the Act reeds _ "

7. Restrictions on the .¢__)t' for h' V certain vehicles __ V _ _ _v (1) No person shall' "a_'»1:e'arner's licence to drive a transport has held a driving Iiceriee vehicle for at {east 5 z A .

(2) No pere,Qri.i:;r;det" 'bf eighteen years $113.11 be g;'errr'reCi*v?.j'V1earher':e'«rhceheewwhto drive a motor cycle the Consent in writing of the hereonVVVh.e;{7i'r1'gtfi1e Care of the person desiring " ;th learnerfeh iieerzce.

V "'A"-ﬁerheiei-ttcf Section 7 of the Act eieariy reveals the: he pereerr ear: be granted iearners Iieenee to drive a '*._:ran.epQvr{1~ Vehicle unless he has held a driving licence ':43 VV:Eri§fe"A;r1en«érenepert vehicle Le. a light merer vehicle fer K eiieee: erge year.

18. The Apex Court in the case of TIWARI M VS~ UNITED INDIA INSURANCE_;~i'";€};Vj~::t'§L.f_,; AND QTHERS reported in 2008 ACJ 265§'£;:%§tsv follows :-

Sections 149 {:2} {:1} (z:).ang: 15"¢<1_);t;rs: ;;;:%::V;;z§g~ Q'; Motor insuran<:e~Driviri§*» .5.ZiCenee?'Lic;tbitity21:5 0 insurance con2pa(tg~Dztib't:'2o': ulieencett 'of "the driver of oﬂendirtg about 3 years prior t0:.i'3'tC..gj};CCiCi"€'f_lt:' got reneweoi the 'o'Cc:;r;Zent~Tribunal found? of policy not been1ofooeti3§:,{1nd-.'trze'ut'a'rtoev't'ompany is liable in:leof}iy"g..tftep"me'uz"ed§High Court in appeal heZd,_ Lat Q "Vt-orrzpensation is pay abte _ ht; in§utronee'--oo:n;V§E:}tny and it may recover the frorifi" and owner of the Vehicle §jI.jiV2;3?:I'égg,.yf""iiC'<:3f"lC€3 is renewable from the date of when appétcoztion for renewat of made more than 30 days after its é5*2:';_ii1irg,!~E»'£?}1ethz-er the driver of oﬁenciing vehiete AA :21 oatid iieertce on the date of accident V' 'Ajonoi insurance eompany is iiabte to indenimfg the {neared -~HeZto£: No, EEGG4 §(.ifJ 2 {SC}, "Head Note: Motor V'ePci;:Zé:'$eﬁAet;._' 'A1 2006 3(1)} 3336 {SC} and 200? AG} 2067 {SC} relied}.

Further, the Apex Ccrurt in the case of INSURANCE CO. LTD. V1i§j1~:5g'ia;;i)£{A:'<.i¢ MAHARIWALA AND OTHERS r}4;pc§:--§§éa iﬁk2008"

2860 has held as follows ;_ V "Head Note: 2988, Section 149 {2} Z\/1f5ifC;";_~ :'..if?.SuI'CUlCe.¢ Driving _ insurance £ice.nCe ifof driver of oJj"eniCi-iIig5.."?,3e'hieie to date of goi."Vv}enewed after the .:c¢:¢z¢nz-- the plea of insiimizice licence was not valid 'a'n,ihe.V Vtcf iaccidenii holding that during €.ihe= i%'::er:Je2'Aiié9i§v period the driver was not or cizlsqualifieci to drive the irizr:k~ it eorzeiuded {hat gap in renewed <:j' Zieeficieeg eanzioi be greund fer exerzeraiiare Wheiiiier insuranee company is Zicii3Ze~ " , 'j_.eeiai;Ne,(2o0:? AC1} me? {sci Carzeurred}.

5% perusal sf W'h8.f been heié if; the §f§F€1'§€Z'f1§i€}E1€§ d€{T1§%i{}ﬁ;S gees ii} §§h€}'i?J the? if ihe gixévee 18 of the offending vehicle does not possess»3V.i}s}ic§Vj'§:._.@;ﬁ':i.TA.

effective licence to drive the vehieie, no .ii3;hi}:io::v%"'ea:1AVbf: "' fastened on the insurance Compe,_vi1y.._-~ f A

19. Coming to the hai1'd,"'.=ihewiiéehicle'V involved in the aecidezit aiigeodesj vehicle, which is a transport vehielei' L. being driven by RW2-Raghaxéeiadragjhei:'éioeident. This is amply \§Mi:ience on record.

Aecordingvtofifsjt: and RW2 who is his son, 'th_e'~--1ear'ners licence {LLR) to drive the same whi.Ch by the RTO, Hospete. A Xeroxeopy of '.:.he"s'amVe is found in the records, but it has .'"np1E' Iﬁenjked Case. The Tribunal has noticed issued in RW2 was for the period It has not been marked in the 'g_<:ase ieeeeordanee with iaw. Further, RWI or RW2 have A not taken steps to produce the eriginai LLR. Hence, ' the same Cannot be taker: into eonsiﬂeration. / / 19 2,0. EXR7' piaced on record reveals Raghavendra. who has been examined as H Case, had obtained licence to drive.' the nee}-T§:rai1sp0i*t vehicle issued from the competefiet e.uff?10fi'Ey :x;h§ci?{'a§?ss. med fmm 25.1.2005 to 24[::% is_VsbL1:b's.e'quef1t to* the date of accident wljich has..V{ake11_.pIaee'0nA 937.2004.

21. As pointed :9 "a_boi_?e I1--"5N2: not possess driving licence 'ﬁe; vd.rive._net;-~iré1nspi3rtKﬁehicle atleast for a period 0f Gide yeafhéis ,<:€§15j;tei11.p:i-a"te'd'V'u/:3.7 of the M.V. Act to possess 'a.vi1earﬁ:e':*'s' '}i§f'ence."é1sVcontended by him. He has ale}? 150$ wwléﬁede L, show that he had obtained IiL€:er1'ce_t'Q €'1~3fi\.'r'e"LVt:he nomtransport vehicle prier .-_t0 of seeide--r:'t. That goes to show that RW2 did trtoﬁ' pQs'se'Ss'*;aiid and effective driving iicemte to drive a tfs::sp0:i.'§/<e_}::ic}e much fess the vehicie involved in this '._e:ase oi: the date of aeeideni. The Tribunal an "'V.'s.V,appreciVsf:ien. sf the material before it has also some ta .' éhjefijght eoneiusisn that *:he driver«RW2 did net gossess Ejeaiid asé effeetive ériving iieence is eiréve {he Véhiﬁﬁ imfsived £1: ihe acteiéezzt. Hevszever, the Tribuzssﬁ <35: gsizrzg ft x/» :§ // '€V 20 through EXR4, the policy, produced by irxterprethig one 0f the conditions has ei:>;;r1<:i:-tti the V' eonemsien that as the :1r::;'e*£I.1:h;ef.;f:'e-aging. auteriekshaw possessed 1earnere'.__h'e.ence '1V,_--o 'dr'ive:."the; transport Vehicle, he has compfied wihththe ef V' the policy and accorciéhgly itet'h'a'e.:'fauSte_ned the tiebility to satisfy the award inittéxlly ::haeee'v:h.<:i_ireeted to recover from the first.1irespcjghtter1*t~QtVhVte--r_. the Condition incorporated' '""i.1_f1 to Rule 3 which e0ntemp1.a4teS'"the;;t . _ a _'p.er:3forr... V Vprjssessing the learners 1ieer1(:e':_t0--d'riVe'":4;:'t,r3hS'pQi't.vehicle has to drive the same aeeompariied by"~a"perse:1'Wh0 is in possession of Valid and eifeetiveh lieeriehe te drive the same and that vehicle at . .A"thVeit" Vehoulcfthhhe empty. In this connection the I -nv1Va_teriaIs«._eQ'hV :e=e:§?:>rd reveal that the Vehicle was met empty at the of accident. Nextiyt thcrugh he was °*e'4re__'e-».accom'p:;§mee by ewe whe had held valid and effective VA licence to drive the same? as RVV2 Raghavehdra not poeeese vaiid iieehee ta drive a ::e31~tr21r1epert zfehieée etieast fer a periett ef ehe year as {?G'§"1§€'£'§1§§Et?;€§ /3' x 2} L1/3.7 of the act, the contention of 0Wr1er~RW1 that RW2 possessed LLRS licence will have . 2111, more so when they have not "taken s:éps-- -15¢, f;>':*¢)':i.1V1<:-e the original ef LLR or have got e§;ar:j'ined'hethe the RTO to Show that he the-L' transport vehicle preceeled by..:a:'ivieer1ee ehia.ir:e:'f; to drive a r101:1~trar1sport Vehiele of one year. Under these of the LLR placed on T he tribunal has igr:<:>reC1..ﬂ 7 to drive the transpert upon the condition ineerporafedahh inx' the policy to pass the Qrder)"«..Theref0re, as the material on record e},eéir}y -ihe vehicle involved in the accident is a tranhsfjori and as the driver RW2 did not possess euvalid .:ar1a'g_ effective driving hcenee to drive ihe same, the insurer eannet be made liable to satisfy' the award.

22. The I'1€X'€ eehéehiiezz <:>f the insurer is that, :he V Eiéirei reepehéenzi ewrzer has €:emn2i{ied hreeeh Qf permii:

% .%E/, Q;

csnditiens inasmuch as the vehisie Le. the..Af1V£§)'1'ia¢E<s}:ai&'.. V' invalved in the accicient has been: ﬁliéci ?E}§3.§?QI1(fi"'3£€f Eizéiits:

permitted 11:15:43? the permit. I%2.__ (3G I}I:{iQ'£i{3iE;_4 "sZ:§€:~ appei1an:~insurer hams: 15{W_44R'ffQ "'H:3jveri."' His evidence cieariy reﬁeais VA Vtizxaf-tfi-eA.Vehi¢1a..i:1{:'0}ved in the accident had beerf 2m Guital Village and Within gkiliage and the radius of :L§§1;3V_§e;:!%1ebennur Taluk of Haveri I_:§_3}str<i.g:i:; f1,::€ther discloses that thrs My1ar:viIi11a'g'é'VT$;:h¢:i% 't3@éV..'_é;ccis;?ei1t has taken place is in Hosvinahgada,ga1i_.'I'%§il:i»k'*Béilary District and the permit condjfiivons néi the respondent---~0wner to ply " V' ~..oui.w::iEiei.."-*;he: zdistrié"t";"' His evidence further discloses the 'ﬁ;i'VS2i;-V.re$§:so§:dént~owner has also not Gbtained ﬁtness c's:$rtificat'e--".i:> Vpiy the Vehicle which is alsa in vielation of .V the'.4 p§.efi<;.1i5: candiiians, Exhibit R5 and R8 are the .,c:€;*ii§icé[{:€ sf fitness and permit which ciaarly gees ta .' éf:é*s.>:? thai: respendent $18.1 has ccmmitied vieiaiien sf T "iiie psmzit eenditiaizs 8.8 depesitsd ta by RW4; 8:'; apgrgeiaiing 31$ €'9é'§é€§1£3€ 3:: rgsarﬁ £316 Triiazmai has 23 Come to the right conclusion that the first respondent owner has eemmitted breach of condiiiiens Qf and the Vehicle did not have proper .

However, the Tribunal relyingge :;pon""'t1:é_~;i <}iee'i.:3ie:1u" rendered by the Apex Court adVei"te{_c'ii i:i:> in has come to the eonclusie>_1fi"-{that'"despite..V beinge' breach of terms a1'i_<_:l e0iid.i:t:iAe»:1S"«._.LQf ..i:he...AApVQ:iiey and Violation of the has to be made liable from the insured i.e;" pointed out the gioei:iIiie1::ts'v~pl'e1ced on record clearly revealeehlai: "of the aute involved in the accident not-_ gﬁoesees Valid and effective driving <:lriveA'tl1e....eame at the time (if accident, This til€:éeifi_S" :0 hold that H0 liability can be fastened eh' Furiher, as already pointed eat the first l',_reepor:<:le':ii:~ewner has also cermniited vielatieri ef the '.eeI_idi'§iions ef the permit issued 'ﬁe hie Vehicle. Under ihleee €§f€'ui'IiSl;f:':i"i€€i$, in my View: ihe Tribuiiei has eemmieied es": €1"F£i}i" in fesieeieg" {he iiabiiiiy Ge. {he 24 appe11ar1t~ir1surer to satisfy the award and fgrther directing to recover frem the owner despite holdizigﬁiaet the driver did not poesess valid and effective f'};---2'} ~ drive the vehicle in questien an__d....f.he ﬁfst'"§'e$pehe§iAen't.§ V' owner has Committed Violations 5-5 t1*}eeT perﬁ:ifCQ11diiiefi'$;. Therefore, the impugned juihigjﬁhzent éilzei a\3f'é§ajd"':;§é::3se:d I:::y*h' the Tribunal fastening theVAh.Eie.t")'vi1if3zLA.or.1'tthe. a:£)pe11ant~ insurer to satisfy the from the first respondent / owsier. ' x by the appe1Iant~« Ir1surgn(:ev E'1'f1 "the foregoing reasons, I proceed :5 hpghise the fAL1V1ios:;;}ing:~ judgment': and award paseed by {he fastening the liability ef payment of ergrfzpensation an the appeilantwineuranee hf_e<:z::1pany and directing iihem to reeever {rem the fire? :*es;}e::ée:1Efewner in ihie appeai is: seteeide. x J"

5'. /M

ii) In Vi€W' of appeI1am:/ insurer having beer} of their liability, the first respendentweiéfﬁereef"

vehicle shall satisfy the:-'errtire eQIIipe;1Sa--ti.3Ivig awarded to the Claimant in fhis'---;_:é.ee; " - . iii} The claimant is at Iibertit-0:_preceed Ireeever the eompeneation a:1i{C.unt from the first respondent. ' * "

Office to drawuthe 'V x The made by the appe113qf)t_.iIj'{S:.1::i*ei:*--:jg :'refur1<:1ed to them. EEEEQE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court