M/S. Oriental Insurance Company ... vs Smt. Govindamma
2021 Latest Caselaw 5961 Kant

                                1


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                             BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

                 M.F.A. NO.1785 OF 2011 (MV)

BETWEEN:

M/S. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
DIVISIONAL OFFICE-VII, NO.1
SHANKAR HOUSE, 3RD FLOOR, R.M.V. EXTENSION
MEKHRI CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560080
NOW R/BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE
NO. 44/45, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX
RESIDENCY ROAD CROSS
BANGALORE-560025
REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
                                               ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI. A.M. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.    SMT. GOVINDAMMA
      W/O LATE SIDDAPPA
      AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

2.    S. BALAKRISHNA
      S/O LATE SIDDAPPA
      AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

      BOTH ARE R/AT NO. 25/1
      2ND MAIN ROAD, PALACE GUTTAHALLI
      OPP: TO VENKATESHWARA SILK
      SAREES
      BANGALORE-560003
                                2


3.   LAKSHMI
     AGED: MAJOR
     R/AT NO. 17, 4TH CROSS
     TRIVENI ROAD, K.N. EXTENSION
     YESHWANTHAPUR
     BANGALORE-560022
                                                    ... RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
 VIDE ORDER DATED 8.1.2016 NOTICE TO R1 & R3 ARE
 HELD SUFFICIENT)

      THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 4.10.2010 PASSED IN MVC
NO.5314/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MACT,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
RS.1,50,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION
TILL REALIZATION.

     THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSIONTHIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                          JUDGMENT

1. The captioned appeal is filed by the Insurance

Company questioning the quantum as well as the liability on

the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle did not

possess valid and effective driving licence as on the date of

the accident.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

Perused the grounds urged in the appeal memo as well as

records.

3. On re-appreciation of the oral and documentary

evidence, this Court would find that the driver of the offending

vehicle was charge sheeted for the offence punishable under

Section 3(1) of MVC Act read with Section 181, 134A and B

and Section 187 of MV Act.

4. Insofar as quantum is concerned, on re-

appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, in absence of

income proof, the Tribunal ought to have taken income at

Rs.4,000/-. However, the Tribunal has notionally assessed the

income at Rs.3,000/-. Therefore, the compensation awarded

under the head of loss of dependency and also on other

conventional heads is very much on the lower side. Therefore,

the same does not warrant any interference.

5. Insofar as liability is concerned, admittedly, the

vehicle involved in the accident is autorickshaw, a light motor

vehicle and unladen weight is less than 7500 kgs. Therefore,

the question of securing transport endorsement in the present

case on hand would not arise. The principle laid by the Apex

Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental

Insurance Company Limited reported in (2017)14 SCC 663

would squarely applicable to the present case on hand. On re-

appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, this

appeal has to fail on both these counts.

6. For the reasons stated supra, the appeal is

dismissed.

7. The amount in deposit is remitted to the Tribunal.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Prs*