The National Insurance Company ... vs Mr.Bhimashya Sirsad
2022 Latest Caselaw 1779 Kant

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

    DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                         BEFORE

    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT

  MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.7431/2014 (MV)

BETWEEN:

THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
1ST FLOOR, NITHYANANDA COMPLEX
NEAR BUS STAND, MODDABIDRI
MANGALORE TALUK
REP. BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY AT
ITS REGIONAL OFFICE NO.144
SHUBHARAM COMPLEX
M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.
                                       ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SRISHAILA A.S., ADV.)

AND:

   1. MR. BHIMASHYA SIRSAD
      S/O LATE SHIVAPPA
      AGED 55 YEARS
      R/AT NO.6-44/3
      IDDYAKATLA, SURATHKAL
      MANGALORE TALUK-575014.

   2. MR. SHIVAPRASAD
      MAJOR
      S/O SHEENA POOJARY
      AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
      R/AT LAADI, KODANGALLU POST
      MOODABIDRI
      MANGALORE TALUK-574227.
                                    ...RESPONDENTS
                            2



      THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S
173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 08.07.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.1724/2010 ON THE
FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MACT-VI, MANGALORE, D.K. AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
RS.60,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% R.A. FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                   JUDGMENT

This appeal is at the instance of the Insurance

Company calling in question the correctness of the

judgment and award dated 08.07.2014 passed in

M.V.C.No.1724/2010 passed by the learned I Additional

Senior Civil Judge, Mangalore.

2. This appeal is filed questioning the award only to

the extent of liability to pay the award amount saddled

on the Insurance Company. The ground urged by the

appellant is that the offending vehicle, which is

Mahindra Pick Up Van is a Light Motor Vehicle, and

therefore, the driver should possess light transport

vehicle driving license with necessary endorsement

thereon. It is brought to my notice that Ex.R-1 is the

copy of Insurance Policy 'B' register extract. A perusal

of Ex.R1-Insurance Policy shows that even though

driving licence had expired as on the date of accident

i.e., on 27.03.2010, Ex.R-1 was still valid and effective

for driving a non-transport Light Motor Vehicle. Ex.R-1

was effective from 08.03.2007 up to 07.03.2027.

Therefore, since class of vehicle to which the offending

vehicle belongs and the driving license issued to the

driver of the offending vehicle are one and the same. In

view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

MUKUND DEWANGAN Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE

COMPANY LIMITED reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663 the

grounds urged in the appeal is no longer available. On

the other hand, in view of the said decision, it is

required to be held that driver of the offending vehicle

is possessing valid and effective license to drive both the

transport vehicles i.e., Light Goods Motor Vehicles as

well as Light Motor Vehicles.

Accordingly there is no merit in this appeal and it

is liable to be rejected. Hence the above appeal is

rejected.

The amount in deposit be transmitted to the

learned MACT forthwith.

SD/-

JUDGE

NG CT:bms