The Divisonal Manager Oriental ... vs Akshay @ Ramesh S/O Jambaiah Dhadapag ... on 21 January, 2020

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

The Divisonal Manager Oriental ... vs Akshay @ Ramesh S/O Jambaiah Dhadapag ... on 21 January, 2020

Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar

                                1


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   KALABURAGI BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2020

                         BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

              MFA NO.201700/2016 (MV)

BETWEEN:

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Branch Office, Post Box No.6
Municipal main road, Adoni
Represented by
The Divisional Manager
Oriental Insurance Company
Ltd., N.G. Complex, 1st Floor
Opp: Mini Vidhan Soudha
Kalaburagi - 585102
                                           ... Appellant
(By Sri Manvendra Reddy, Advocate)

AND:

1.     Akshay @ Ramesh S/o Jambaiah
       Dhadapag, Age: 36 Years
       Occ: Agriculture and Business
       R/o H.No.1-4-849/159/B
       Behind Mother Trust School
       Station Area, Raichur - 584101

2.     Ediga Gopal Krishna S/o Sriramulu
       Age: 26 Years, Occ: Driver
       R/o H.No.6-6-52/A
       Thimmapurpet, Raichur - 584101
                              2


3.   Chand Basha S/o Kasim Sab
     Age: Major, Occ: Owenr of Tata
     Goods Vehicle No.AP-24/Y-8832
     R/o H.No.8-66, Kosigi (PO)
     Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh
                                           ... Respondents
(Sri Basavaraj R. Math, Advocate for R1;
V/o dated 22.02.2019 notice to R2 is dispensed with;
R3 is served)

      This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act praying to, set aside the
judgment and award dated 09.09.2016 passed by I
additional District and Sessions Judge at Raichur in MVC
No.552/2012 by allowing the appeal as prayed for.

      This appeal coming on for Admission this day, the
Court delivered the following:


                       JUDGMENT

This appeal by the insurance company is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 09.09.2016 passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge and MACT at Raichur (for short 'the Tribunal'), in MVC No.552/2012, awarding a sum of Rs.4,04,086/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization of the award amount towards the injuries sustained by the 3 claimant in a road traffic accident that occurred on 26.12.2011.

2. Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.

3. The primary ground urged on behalf of the insurance company in the present appeal is that the driver of the offending vehicle possessed a licence to drive light motor vehicle only and that since the offending vehicle was a goods vehicle in respect of which, the driver did not have a licence, the Tribunal committed an error in fastening the liability upon the insurance company. It is also contended that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and the same requires reduction by this Court.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant would support the impugned judgment and award. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the claimant 4 that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd & Ors., reported in (2016) 4 SCC 298, the contention urged on behalf of the insurance company in relation to licence of the driver of the vehicle deserves to be rejected.

5. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the claimant the question whether the driver of the offending vehicle involved in the instant case who possessed a licence to drive light motor vehicle which did not authorize him to drive the offending vehicle which is the goods vehicle would by itself absolve the insurance company of its liability to pay compensation is no longer res integra in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan, wherein the Apex Court has clearly held that merely because the driver of the vehicle who possessed a licence to drive a particular class of vehicle did not possess a licence to drive a different class of vehicle, the said circumstance was by 5 itself not sufficient to absolve the insurance company of its liability to pay compensation.

6. Insofar as quantum of compensation is concerned, having regard to the material on record, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. Under these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the above appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.

7. The amount in deposit is hereby directed to be transferred to the Tribunal for disbursement.

Sd/-

JUDGE RSP

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court