Karnataka High Court
The Manager Bajaj Allianz General ... vs Smt Vimala on 14 July, 2014
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF JULY 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G.RAMESH
M.F.A. No.4158/2011 (MV)
BETWEEN:
The Manager
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd.,
G.E.Plaza, Airport Road,
Eravada Poona,
By its Regional Office
105-A/ 107/A, No.136,
Cears Plaza, Residency Road,
Bangalore, Rep.by its
Senior Legal Executive. .. Appellant
( By Sri P.B.Raju, Advocate )
AND:
1. Smt.Vimala W/o late Devendra,
Aged 51 yrs, R/o Machenahally,
Shimoga Taluk.
2. T.N.Sudarshan,
S/o T.N.Narasimhamurthy,
Park Road, Hassan,
Arkalgud Taluk, Hassan Dist. .. Respondents
( By Smt.Kavitha H.C., Advocate for R-1
And Sri Chetan B., Adv. For R-2 )
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of M.V.Act against
the judgment and award dated 14.10.2010 passed in
MVC.No.104/2008 on the file of Presiding Officer, Fast Track
Court-II and MACT, Shimoga, awarding compensation of
2
Rs.3,61,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition
till realization.
This MFA coming on for Admission this day, the Court
delivered the following :
JUDGMENT
This appeal is by the insurer against the judgment and award passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, MACT, Shimoga, in MVC.No.104/2008, dated 14th October 2010.
2. For the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident that occurred on 21.12.2007 due to negligent driving by the driver of the Bajaj Tempo Trax bearing registration No.KA-13-8140, which was insured with appellant-insurance company, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.3,61,000/- with 6% interest from the date of petition till deposit, holding both insured and insurer jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Being aggrieved by the same, the insurer is before this Court.
Heard the learned counsel representing for both parties.
3. The learned counsel for the insurer submitted that as on the date of accident, the driver of the Tempo Trax was not 3 having valid and effective driving licence to drive light motor vehicle. He relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company -vs- Angad Kol (AIR 2009 SC 2151) and submitted that as on the date of accident driver of tempo possessed a driving licence to drive an LMV only and was not qualified to drive LMV transport vehicle. Accordingly, sought for allowing the appeal.
4. The Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co.Ltd., -vs- Swaran Singh and others ( AIR 2004 SC 1531) held that, if there is breach of condition of policy as provided under Section 149 of Motor Vehicles Act, the insurer cannot be absolved from its liability. Even with respect to pay and recover, it has been decided from time to time and ordered that insurance company is liable to pay compensation.
5. In the case of S.Iyyapan -vs- M/s.United India Insurance Company Ltd., & another ( AIR 2013 SC 2262), the Apex Court referring to Section 149 of M.V. Act observed that violation of condition of policy does not absolve the insurer of its statutory liability to pay compensation to third party 4 notwithstanding the fact that the insurer may proceed against the insured for recovery of the amount.
6. In the case of National Insurance Co.Ltd., -vs- Annappa Irappa Nesaria and others (2008 ACJ 721), the Apex Court observed that if driver had valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle, he was authorized to drive a light goods vehicle as well and the insurance company cannot absolve its liability on the ground that driver did not possess an effective licence to drive a transport vehicle.
7. In the present case, claimant is a third party and the dispute is between owner and insurer, as such claimant has to be compensated. If there is specific breach of condition of policy, as provided under Section 149 of M.V.Act, then insurer can lay claim against the owner for recovery of compensation. Whether the driver had valid driving licence to drive light motor passenger vehicle or light motor transport vehicle does not matter much. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the insurer in the case of Angad Kol, (cited supra) does not 5 have any relevance to the facts of this case. The Tribunal rightly ordered for pay and recovery.
8. In that view of the matter, the insurer is liable to pay compensation and question of recovery may not arise even if there is violation of policy conditions as per Section 149 of M.V.Act.
Appeal is dismissed. The amount in deposit before this Court shall be transferred to the Tribunal for disbursement.
Sd/-
JUDGE *bk/-