Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager, vs Iravva W/O Subhash Moogabasava, on 23 October, 2013
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L. Narayana Swamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF OCTOBER 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY
MFA No.24060/2012(MV)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
SUJATHA COMPLEX, P.B. ROAD, HUBLI,
REP. THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE,
ARIHANTA COMPLEX, KUSUGAL ROAD, HUBLI,
REP. BY ITS ASST MANAGER.
APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NAGANGOUDA R. KUPPELLUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. IRAVVA W/O SUBHASH MOOGABASAVA,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
2. MALLIKARJUN S/O SUBHASH MOOGABASAVA,
AGE: 16 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
3. NAGARAJ S/O SUBHASH MOOGABASAVA,
AGE: 12 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 BEING MINORS
REP. BY THEIR M/G NATURAL MOTHER RESP.NO.1.
RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 ARE R/O SHANTI NIWAS
5TH CROSS, KALYAN NAGAR, DHARWAD.
4. PARVATEVVA W/O RUDRAPPA MOOGABASAVA,
AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
2
R/O: INAM HONGAL, TQ: SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELGAUM.
5. VISHAL S/O MOHAN CHAVVAN,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: CHAVAN COMPLEX, NAKA NO.1,
GOKAK, TQ: GOKAK. DIST. BELGAUM.
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. GIRISH S HIREMATH, Advocate. FOR R1, R3 & R4
SRI. G. B. NAIK, Advocate. FOR R5)
THIS MFA FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:23-05-2012
PASSED IN MVC NO.131/2011 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING
OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-I, AT DHARWAD, AWARDING THE
COMPENSTION OF RS.6,16,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE
OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF
REALISATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is by the insurance company challenging the liability.
2. To contend that the Tribunal has committed an error, learned counsel places reliance on the endorsement dated 19/03/2002 issued by the Regional Transport Office, with regard to the expiry of transport validity on 12/11/2009 and, as such, as on the date of the accident i.e. 03/08/2010, transport validity of the vehicle had 3 expired. In order to substantiate his contention he refers to sub-section2(e) of Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which according to him, requires transport validity/licence in order to fix liability on the insurance. He further submitted that the quantum of compensation is more and prays for reduction of the compensation awarded to the claimants. He further submits that the Tribunal ought to have rejected the claim petition on the ground that the claimant should have approached the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation for the purpose of claiming compensation.
3. Contentions urged by learned counsel for the insurance are examined in the light of the provisions of the Act.
4. With regard to the contention that the liability of the insurance to pay compensation in view of the endorsement issued by the department which states that transport validity of the vehicle had expired on 12/11/2009 4 and hence as on the date of the accident there was no transport validity is concerned, the same has to be rejected for the reason that there is pre-condition to fix the liability on the insurance as per Section 10(e) of the Act. Hence, the only question that remains for consideration is whether the driver was in possession of the driving licence and whether it is in accordance with Sections 4 and 6 of the Motor Vehicles Act? That ground is not taken before the Tribunal. Since the claimants satisfied the provisions under Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation. Hence, there is no error in the order.
5. Second contention of the learned counsel is, that since the deceased was working as a cleaner, the claimants should have invoked the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act instead of Motor Vehicles Act. The said submission has been examined and the same has to be rejected for the reason that it is for the claimant to choose the forum, either the Motor Accident 5 Claims Tribunal or WC Commissioner. In the instant case, the claimant has chosen the forum under the provision of the Motor vehicles Act. Hence, I do not find any error in it.
6. Under the circumstance, there is no water in the contentions taken by the learned counsel for the insurance. Accordingly, they are rejected.
7. I do not find any good ground to admit this appeal. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to the Fast Track Court-I, Dharwad.
SD/-
JUDGE kmv