AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Ananda, J.—The matters are listed for admission. The lower court records are received. With the consent of learned counsel for parties, it is taken up for final disposal.
The Insurance Company has filed MFA No. 3698/2011 to set aside the impugned award, inter alia contending that rider of Bajaj Chetak Scooter (insured vehicle) did not have valid and effective driving licence to ride scooter on the date of accident. Therefore, Tribunal should not have fastened liability on Insurance Company.
I have heard learned counsel for Insurance Company, learned counsel for claimant and the owner of insured vehicle.
It is not in dispute that vehicle involved in accident is a scooter with gear. Before Tribunal, Insurance Company had relied on endorsement issued by Licencing Authority that rider of insured vehicle namely Ramachandra was granted driving licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle (Non-Transport) from 07.03.1991 to 19.06.2006. This endorsement does not prove as on the date of accident viz 28.11.2004, rider of scooter did not hold driving licence to ride a scooter.
Before this court, Insurance Company has filed driving licence extract wherein it is shown that driving licence was issued on 07.03.1991. It was valid up to 19.06.2006. The Insurance Company has also enclosed a copy of driving licence. The first part of driving licence shows that it was issued to rider of vehicle on 07.03.1991 by Licencing Authority at Tumkur. The later part of document shows that licence to drive a motor vehicle other than transport vehicle was issued on 07.03.1991, by the Licencing Authority, Bangalore West, which was valid up to 19.06.2006. In terms of this endorsement, he was authorised to drive motor vehicle other than transport vehicle. The scooter involved in accident falls within the description of motor vehicle and it was not a transport vehicle. In this view of the matter, the contention of Insurance Company that rider of scooter did not have valid and effective driving licence cannot be accepted. There is no merit in MFA No. 3698/2011 filed by Insurance Company.
In view of judgment made in MFA No. 3698/2011, wherein this court has confirmed that Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation, MFA No. 493/2012 filed by the owner of vehicle does not survive for consideration.
In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
MFA No. 3698/2011 filed by Insurance Company is dismissed. The amount deposited by Insurance Company shall be transferred to Tribunal. In view of judgment made in MFA No. 3698/2011, MFA No. 493/2012 filed by owner of insured, vehicle-does not survive for consideration and it is accordingly dismissed. The amount deposited by appellant in MFA No. 493/2012 shall be refunded to him.