AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Both these appeals arise out of the common award dated 27.02.2017, passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT-V, Chitradurga, whereby for the injuries suffered by the claimants-respondents, different compensations have been awarded to the claimants.
The learned counsel for the appellant has frankly conceded that the only contention raised by the Insurance Company is with regard to its liability to pay the compensation. According to the Insurance Company, since the driver of the Autorickshaw, the offending vehicle, did not have a specific endorsement, in the Driving License to drive a light motor vehicle, for driving an Autorickshaw, the Insurance Company cannot be imposed with liability of payment of compensation.
But, the learned counsel for appellant has frankly conceded, and in view of this Court rightly so, that the said plea no longer survives in the light of the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited [ (2017) AIR SCW 3668] For, in the said case, the Apex Court has clearly held that if the driver of the offending vehicle has a valid license for driving a light motor vehicle, then, the law does not require a specific endorsement for driving a particular kind of vehicle. Therefore, the Insurance Company cannot escape from the liability to pay the compensation on the ground that there is lack of specific endorsement in the driving license.
The same plea has been raised before this Court. However, in the light of the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra), the plea is clearly unacceptable.
For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in these two appeals. Therefore, the appeals are hereby dismissed.