Karnataka High Court
M E Jayachandra vs M/S The Reliance General Insurance ... on 25 March, 2015
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA
M.F.A.No.3737/2012 (MV)
BETWEEN:
M E JAYACHANDRA
S/O M K ESHWARAIAH, 23 YEARS
R/O MUDDENAHALLI VILLAGE
CHIKKNAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI R CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR M/s.LAWYERS
NET, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. M/s.THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
NO.28, CENTENARY BUILDING
5TH FLOOR, M G ROAD, BANGALORE - 1
BY ITS MANAGER.
2. T G LALITHA
W/O G RAJANNA, MAJOR
R/AT NEAR VIJAYA BANK
DABASPET, NELAMANGALA TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 111. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI H N KESHAVA PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 -
SERVED)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.10.2011
PASSED IN MVC NO.4934/2010 ON THE FILE OF CHIEF JUDGE,
PRINCIPAL MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AT BANGALORE,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
2
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The tribunal has fastened liability on the insured. The claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation and also to fasten liability on the insurance company.
2. The tribunal has held: the claimant is stated to be a spare driver of insured vehicle; the policy issued in respect of insured vehicle did not cover the risk of spare driver, therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay compensation.
3. I have heard Sri.R.Chandrashekar, learned counsel for claimant and Sri.B.C.Shivannegowda, learned counsel for insurance company.
4. On hearing learned counsel for parties and after going through evidence and the impugned award and the copy of policy, I find that insurance company had collected premium to cover the risk of driver only. The insurance company had collected premium of Rs.25/- to cover the risk 3 of driver. In terms of IMT 40, the Legal Liability Premium (LLB) collected while taking insurance of vehicle at the rate of Rs.25/- would cover the risk of driver/conductor and/or cleaner.
5. The learned counsel for claimant has relied on the judgment of this court reported in ILR 2006 KAR 1109 ( in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited, Belgaum DO., -vs- Smt.Shanthavva and Others) to contend that spare driver would also come within the meaning of "driver engaged in driving the vehicle". If there is only one claim under the Act policy, the insurer is liable to pay compensation to a spare driver under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
6. In a decision reported Civil Appeal No.5/2013 dated 03.01.2013 (in the case of Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd., -vs- Saju P. Paul and Another) the Supreme Court has held:
"An Act Policy would cover the risk of driver and the insurance company would be liable to pay compensation in 4 terms of relevant provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923."
The Supreme Court has held that, an Act policy does not cover the risk of a spare driver. The insurance company is liable to cover the risk of spare driver if additional premium is paid by the insured.
7. As already stated, the insured had paid premium of Rs.25/- to cover the risk of driver in terms of IMT 40. Therefore, the tribunal was justified in holding that insurance company is not liable to pay compensation.
8. The Photostat copy of driving license produced by the claimant as per Ex.P2 cannot be accepted as perse evidence. Admittedly, the claimant was in possession of driving license. He should have produced primary evidence (driving license) before the tribunal. For any reason, he had to retain the driving license, he should have produced the license before the tribunal and taken back the same after verification by the tribunal. The claimant has failed to prove that he had license to drive Heavy Goods Vehicle on the date of accident.
5
9. The claimant has not examined witness to prove that he was traveling as a spare driver. Therefore, the submission of learned counsel for claimant that liability should have been fastened on the insurance company cannot be accepted.
10. The claimant had suffered following injuries:
i) Type I open fracture of both bones of left leg at Lower 1/3rd
ii) Punctured wound measuring 2cm x 0.5 cm over the medial aspect of distal 1/3rd of left leg
iii) Cut lacerated wound measuring 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm over the asterior aspect of left leg.
The claimant was given First Aid treatment in KIMS Hospital at Hubli. Thereafter, he was shifted to Siddhartha Hospital at Tumkur. The tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.2,60,173/-.
11. On hearing learned counsel for parties and after going through evidence and medical records, I find that the tribunal on proper appreciation of evidence has awarded just and reasonable compensation. There are no reasons to enhance the compensation.
6
12. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Np/-