Hdfc Ergo Gen Ins Co Ltd., ... vs Gantasala Vimala, Eluru, ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2063 AP

      HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO
                        AND
          HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI

                    M.A.C.M.A. No.652 of 2017

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice U.Durga Prasad Rao)

      The challenge in this appeal at the instance of respondent

No.3/insurance company is the judgment dated 30.06.2016 in

M.V.O.P.No.319/2013 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal (Principal District Judge, Eluru) granting compensation of

Rs.38,65,000/- towards compensation for the death of one Gantasala

Naga Venkata Mohan in a motor vehicle accident occurred on the

night of 03.06.2010 when a Tavera Car bearing registration No.KJ-01-

B-2771 dashed him near Silk Board flyover in Bangalore City causing

his instantaneous death. The claimants, who are the parents and

brother of the deceased, filed M.V.O.P.No.319/2013 against the

respondents 1 to 3 who are the driver, owner and insurer of the

offending car. The respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte and the 3rd

respondent/insurance company contested the claim petition inter alia

contending that the driver of the Tavera car i.e., 1st respondent had no

valid driving license at the time of accident. The Tribunal negatived

all the contentions of the 3rd respondent including the plea of lack of

driving license and allowed the claim petition.

Hence, the M.A.C.M.A.

2. Heard the learned counsel for appellant Sri Kota Subba Rao,

and Smt. Kalla Tulasi Durghamba, learned counsel for

respondents/claimants.

3. The main plank of the argument of learned counsel for

appellant is that the 1st respondent in the O.P. who is the driver of

offending vehicle had no effective driving license to drive Tavera car.

As per Ex.B2-driving license, he was holding driving license to drive

an LMV non-transport vehicle upto 23.02.2017 and LMV/three

wheeler cab upto 04.11.2017. Therefore he was not authorized to

drive Tavera car. However, the Tribunal failed to appreciate the said

contention and erroneously fastened liability on the insurance

company. He thus prayed to allow the appeal and either exonerate the

appellant-insurance company from the liability or direct that the

appellant-insurance company can pay and recover the compensation

amount from the owner.

4. Smt. K.Tulasi Durghamba, learned counsel for the respondents,

opposed the appeal stating that the driver had driving license to drive

light motor vehicle and the vehicle in question is also a light motor

vehicle and considering the same the lower Tribunal rightly held that

the insurance company is also jointly and severally liable to pay

compensation. She thus prayed to dismiss the appeal.

5. The point for consideration is whether there are merits in the

appeal to allow?

6. Point: The accident, involvement of Tavera car bearing

registration No.KJ-01-B-2771 and death of deceased in the said

accident are all admitted facts. So far as the driving license issue is

concerned, it is not the case of the appellant-insurance company that

the 1st respondent did not possess the driving license at all. On the

other hand, its case is that the driver had license to drive LMV non-

transport vehicle and therefore, he had no effective driving license to

drive the Tavera car. In paragraph No.22 of its judgment, the lower

Tribunal had discussed the said contention and negatived. The

insurance company examined RTO, Chitradurga as RW.3, who on

perusal of Ex.B2-license, deposed that the driver was not authorized

to drive Maxi cab. He stated that Maxi cab is a vehicle with sitting

capacity of 9+1 in all. However, in the cross-examination he admitted

that Maxi cab commander is a LMV class of vehicle. The Tribunal on

perusal of Ex.B2-driving license noticed that the driver was holding

driving license for LMV non-transport car upto 23.02.2017 and

LMV/three wheeler cab upto 04.11.2017. Then the Tribunal observed

that the insurance company has not got clarified through RW.2,

whether the Tavera car was a Maxi cab and whether it was a transport

or non-transport vehicle. In view of lack of such clarification to

exclude the subject Tavera car from the purview of Ex.B2, the lower

Tribunal finally concluded that the Tavera car is a LMV class of

vehicle and the driver holds valid driving license for LMV vehicle and

therefore, he is competent to drive the offending car.

7. On considering the Ex.B1-insurance policy and the evidence on

record, we subscribe the view taken by the lower Tribunal. As rightly

observed by the Tribunal, the driver holds valid driving license to

drive LMV class of vehicles. It was not placed on record

affirmatively that the Tavera car was not a LMV but a HMV.

Therefore, we hold that the judgment of the Tribunal is valid in the

eye of law.

8. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed by confirming the

judgment in M.V.O.P.No.319/2013 passed by the Motor Accidents

Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge, Eluru). No costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending for

consideration, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J

______________ J. UMA DEVI, J

21.06.2021 MVA

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO AND HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI

M.A.C.M.A.No.652 of 2017

21st June, 2021 MVA