AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal is by the insurer challenging the judgment and award dated 24.7.2006 passed in MVC No. 1006/2003 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and Addl. MACT, Kunigal.The Tribunal, by its impugned judgment and award has awarded a sum of Rs. 3, 07,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation, Contenting that the quantum of compensation is on the higher side and that fastening liability on the insurer cannot foe sustained and the same has to foe modified, the insurer has presented this appeal.
The occurrence of the accident on 13.6.2004 at 9.45 p.m. and the resultant death of the deceased in the road traffic accident are not in dispute. The claimants are the legal representatives of the deceased Sri. Hanumantharaju. The wife and minor daughter of the deceased have filed the claim petition for condensation against the appellant-insurer, owner and driver of the offending vehicle contending that due to the untimely death of the deceased, they have lost the sole bread-earner of the family and- their future has been jeopardised. The said natter had come up for consideration before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal in turn, on careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, allowed the same in part, awarding a sum of Rs. 3,07,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation.. Not being satisfied with the impugned judgment and. award passed by the Tribunal, the appellant-insurer felt necessitated to present this appeal.
Learned counsel, Sri.Ravishankar, appearing for LR of respondent No. 3, at the outset, submitted that the instant case is directly covered by the judgment passed by this Court in MFA No. 7455/2007, MFA No. 7457/2007 and MFA No. 7458/2007 disposed of on 9th November
2010, wherein this Court has held that the Tribunal is justified in fastening the liability on the insurer and that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribuual is also just and proper and interference by this Court is not called for. Therefore, he submitted that following the said judgment, this case may also be disposed of. The submission made by the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 is placed on record.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri.A.M. Venkatesh, at the outset,, disputed the driving licence and submitted that as on the date of the accident, driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid driving licence.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for LR of respondent No. 3 produced the original Driving Licence before the Court and also a copy of the same. On perusal of the same, it is crystal clear that as on the date of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle; did possess the valid Driving Licence. Therefore, the specific ground taken by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri. A.M. Venkatesh, has get no substance and cannot be accepted.
Learned counsel Sri. A.M. Venkatesh, appearing for the appellant further submitted that the vehicle in question is not at all involved in the accident. The stand taken by the Insurer is rejected as an after thought, as the said contention is neither taken during the course of the proceedings nor in the written statement and it ought to have taken such a stand at the preliminary stage itself. The Tribunal after assessing the oral and documentary evidence available on file has rightly fastened the liability on the Insurer. Hence, it does not call for interference. Therefore, in the light of the said judgment dated 9.11.2010, we do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. Hence, the instant appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed as devoid of merits.
The amount deposited by the appellant-insurer shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal, immediately.
Draw the award accordingly.