AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company assailing the judgment and award, dated 14.2.2017, passed by the MACT, Bangalore (SCCH No.1) in MVC.No.1137/2016.
For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to before the Tribunal.
The brief facts leading to filing of the claim petition are that on 5.7.2015 at about 7.40 a.m., when the petitioner was travelling as an inmate in TATA Magic bearing Regn.No.KA-40/9197 near Amanibyrasandra, Vaddamma Temple, Gudibande Town, at that time the driver of the said vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the wall of the lake, as a result of which, the inmates of the vehicle sustained injuries. Immediately, they were shifted to nearby Government Hospital at Gudibande and later they were shifted to Manasa Hospital at Chikkaballapur, wherein they were treated as inpatients for the injuries sustained by them. Thereafter, the petitioner filed claim petition before the Tribunal.
After issuance of notice by the Tribunal, respondent No.1, owner of the vehicle though served remained exparte. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company has entered appearance and filed the written statement denying the contents of the petition. It was contended that the liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. It was further contended that the Insurance Company had issued the policy in favour of first respondent-owner of the vehicle in question. He had no valid permit and fitness certificate to ply at the alleged place of accident and the driver of the vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license to drive the said vehicle. The owner of the vehicle allowed the driver who had no license to drive the vehicle in question and thereby violated the terms and conditions of the policy and as such the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. Hence, it prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
After hearing the parties, the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.15,000/- in favour of the petitioner-claimant from the date of petition till realization holding that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Challenging the said award, the Insurance Company is before this Court by preferring the present appeal.
I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company.
The main ground urged by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company is that the insured vehicle is a maxicab and the license possessed by the driver of the vehicle as per Exs.R1 and R2 which is issued to him for a period of 20 years from 25.5.2013 to 24.5.2013 authorized him to drive MCWG and LMV and he was not having any endorsement to drive the vehicle in question. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation.
Admittedly, in the present case, except challenging the liability on the appellant-Insurance Company, the appellant has not challenged the quantum of compensation awarded in favour of the claimant hence, I am not inclined to go into that aspect of the matter. As could be seen from the facts of the case, the driving license at Exs.R1 and R2 is valid from 25.5.2013 to 24.5.2033. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the said license will not permit the licensee to drive the vehicle in question.
It is well settled principle of law that if a person has been given a license to drive particular type of vehicle, he cannot be said to have no license for driving another type of vehicle which is of the same category, but of a different type. In the instant case, the license at Exs.R1 and R2 clearly indicates that the driver was having a MCWG LMV (any transport vehicle) license. When the driver was having valid and effective driving license to drive a particular category of vehicle, he does not become disable to drive the vehicle in question.
It is relevant to note here itself that the connected appeal filed by the Insurance Company in MFA.NO.3945/2017 is already dismissed by this Court. Keeping in view the aforesaid fact and the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited & others, reported in (2016) 4 SCC 298, I find no ground in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. Hence, appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed as devoid of merit.
The statutory amount deposited by the appellant- Insurance Company shall be transmitted to the Tribunal.
In view of dismissal of the appeal, I.A.2/2017 does not survive for consideration. Hence, the same is dismissed.