Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt Prema on 18 February, 2010

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt Prema on 18 February, 2010

Equivalent citations: 2011 AIR CC 296 (KAR), (2010) 91 ALLINDCAS 891 (KAR), 2010 (4) AIR KANT HCR 738, (2011) 2 TAC 503, (2011) 1 ACC 595, (2010) 3 KANT LJ 348, (2010) 4 TAC 261

Bench: Aravind Kumar

l
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 18?" DAY OF FEBRUARY. 2010
B E F O R E

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE ARAVIND 

M.F.A.N0. 12902 of 2007   
BETWEEN:   

Bajaj Allianz General InsL1ra1j1Ce._Co.. Li".d.".. «. V' "
No.363, Sri. Hari Comap-iex. 2 V' 
Seethavilas Road, * 

Mysore. _ V'

Having its Regiorial. Office at 

105A. 1 Floor. Céars~Plaz:1:--3.; " "

Resici'er.1l(:y'.;_RoadV.'=  *

VB;iﬁgaIc,x,:~e --"7j5Ei0'Q25. %

'By its S6:"1.t.i«:)_»1*'Manager. Claims.
I . --     Appellant

(By S"r:l__:H,S;--. L;ng;';:_é.ra3. Adv.)

     
  Agcfl-..a1Lé<)1.1i 38 years.
W,' t')_. 4fl,a'(ae Balu.

   Anjana.
 Aged about 8 years,
  {)/0. Late Balm.

ll  ..  K1.1m.Anjali.



I»)

Aged about 6 years.
D/0. Lat:e Balm.

4. Chi. E)arshan.
Aged about 1 year.
S/0. Late Balm.

{R2 to R4 being minors are"i'1erein-'_4
R_eprese1'1'€.ed by their n"10t.he_r and I '
Natural guardian R. 1, Smt."Pre--_r_11a}

5. Smii. Devamma.
Major,  
W/0. Late Ma11th.axiah.,Ai""' *  

All are residing ai  
Varuna I-Iebli,   .  =  V  
Mysore;  i 

6.      :  V

R',ra.-K. R, 'Rtjadi,'..M'v.s.iim Block,
Yelandur Tow 17:, = 
V . Cha1ni'a1faja11--aga.r District.
A  V '=-- . Respondents
*   Mohan Kumar, Adv. for R.1 and R5,
T' C»; M. Jagacieesh, Adv. for R6,
A A  R3 and R4 rninors represented by R.1}

*=!==i€*=§=

AA  This MFA is filed U/s. }73{1) of MV Act against the

  'AA-jitzdgmerit and award dated 29-06-2007 passed in MVC

I\3i0.]379/2006 on the file of Presiding Officer, Fast Track

T ~~-Court:-iii. MACT, Mysore, awarding a compensation of



Rs.4,50.()00/~ with interest at the rate of 6% pa from the
date of petition till deposit.

This appeal coming on for Admission. this day.

the Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

Though the matter is listed fora<d1'niss.ion.l"since;the ' matter is of the year 2007: and trial' ife.cord.s have» been secured. by _consent_l:V"'-of 'v.\lLh€..l Counsel appearing for the pa1*"tiefs,, thefslmattlersil is, taken up for ﬁnal disposal.

_ _ "lhe Co. is in appeal questioning the ctorrectnessiland. leLgaEity..'the judgment and award passed by the Fast Court W 111 and MACT, Mysore. in MVC Vf ml' 3,306 Vaz,.2a»--s--o7.

3v,.l'le:'?.:_'I'ihe facts in this appeal are not disputed, narneI.ypi~the accident in question and the death of Balu, _ wl3o.:se legal represeiitatives were the claimants before the .v___'i'ribunal. The only question in this appeal which has been assailed by the Insurance Co. is with regard to liability of the insurance Co.

4. I have heard Sri. Lingaraj, appearing for the appellant. and learned Counsel appearing for responderits l1vI1o._5..,_f

5. Sri. Lingaraj wou.1:d'~~.eont.en__dthat Tribunal was in error in holding that driver' .offenld'ing~\}*ehicie was possessing an effective _e_anld.fwilidlii'-li'e.eii--ee and contends that there no valid _:e¢11cl4oi*s_ernent lmade in the said lieeiicge to the vehicle in question, whi<;:hl'-is' .a g(J;V()C}.ldI'£%V'»"a.ti'tQl'i(tkShaW. in support of his eontentiori}l*1e._dra'*ws""'lthe attention of the Court to Ncitliorx-alzIns1if(i'r1cé Co.Ltd. vs. Kusuma Rai and b:piier§;;i4r;§p;51»:r;e;: in AIR 2006 sew 1649. 6,. "g¥er contra. Sri. Mohan Kumar would contend 'E.h£1l .T}flb1.II}E1l has in fact considered the very same ".AA(:o.n_t.ent.i<)n now raised in the present appeal, and has found an facts. the said e0r1tent:i011 is erroneous, and a<:oording1.y, seeks for dismissal ofilie appeal.

7. Having heard the {earned Counsei the parties, the foiiowing point arises for (:onsider:a'iiejri._.';i Whether as on the date' Q!" « the driver of the possessing valid and eﬂectiae eirivirig i,:;~e:=..ce?' "

8. The respondent had produced a photostat copy of thei7¢].riVin?g;;g Qf Mr. Pasha, who wages "'the""_"dffend_1ng vehicle. The said driving, iiceneed issued by the _]urisdict10I1al Regional T'1=anspe',:'t. Offieer, Mysore, and at page No.8, it is fb'Li.iic1a.§.ha1:.Aa11 endurvsement has been made. which reads "An'r'E}<$;rised to drive trarisporiz Vehicle No. 1 101"

and 'éihve7~said endorsement has been renewed from time to and it was Valid npto 30~1~--O8. Though an (3 endorsement made in page 6 which reads "'IWPV"._ it C'c1i1i10'{ be said that the said Ezaz Pasha did notlepos_sess an effective and valid driving licence to dri\;fe"t*h_'e--.__goods auto vehicle on the date of thewaccident' endorsement. made at page 8. tlhe"feis\'xt:ard would also depict that, as ontlfze date of the Aa.ce.i.Cle.nt,, 27-8-06. the Tribunal ofevidence that the driver of the off'endirfg-- possessed driving licence which to drive the goods " V l V

9.: ._Ont'reap'precjsiti.oi1 of the evidence and scrutiny of amliaolt' to accede to the prayer made by learned 'Clourisiel for the appellant, and accordingly, the_said.pgeor1tentior1 raised with reference to non» pos'sess1or1--._of;;va1id effective driving licence is rejected. No g othe1°xg'rot1rids are urged by the learned counsel for the j V. ax.plpfjll3.Vf1t.

In view of the above, the following order is passed :

The aPI3ea.1 is dismissed as devoid of merits. The am0L1nt' deposited before this Cotlfi, VisV'0i"'(i&: fed'»'_ to be 1'etra1'1smii1:ed to the rFI':}.,';L)>{>1VI'1é3}' f5g)rtJ'1"\§Vi:*c'§'_1,V: xthe ' Registry.

:ﬁB%E

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court