AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Subhash B. Adi
This is a claimant''s appeal against the judgment and award dated 17.3.2011 in MVC No. 1680/2009 on the file of the MACT, Bangalore questioning the liability fixed on the owner to pay the compensation. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,37,400/- with interest. However, it has held that the owner is liable to pay the compensation on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid license.
No doubt, the owner produced Ex. R7 - the notarized copy of the driving license, however, RW-2 -ARTO, Haveri has been examined before the Tribunal, who has stated that RTO has not issued Ex. R7 - license bearing FDL No. 1765/06-07. The Tribunal has found that the notarized license produced is a fake licence. However, the owner has not even made arty effort to examine the driver of the vehicle. The Tribunal has also found that the insurer has issued a notice with acknowledgement due to the owner to produce necessary documents as per Exs. R2 and R3. Even then, the owner has not produced the license. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly held that the owner is liable to pay the compensation. The owner has not even chosen to file an appeal to question his liability. It is only the claimant, who has come before this Court in this appeal. Considering the same, I find no grounds to interfere with the order of the Tribunal.
Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.