The New India Assurance Company ... vs Shri Mahendra
2022 Latest Caselaw 12523 Kant

                            1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

                          BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

                M.F.A.NO.4240/2013 (MV)

BETWEEN:

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
BRANCH AT CHANDANA COMPLEX,
HARSHAMAHAL ROAD, HASSAN
REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER,
REGIONAL OFFICE,
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS,
NO.9, M.G.ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.                      ... APPELLANT

            (BY SRI A. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     SHRI. MAHENDRA
       SON OF SHRI RANGAIAH,
       AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
       STUDENT, STUDING B.A.
       RESIDING AT HALEBELUR VILLAGE,
       KASABA HOBLI,
       SAKALESHPURA TALUK,
       HASSAN DISTRICT- 573 134.

2.     SHRI H.P. SUBBEGOWDA
       S/O. LATE SHRI PUTTEGOWDA,
       AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS,
                                 2



      NO.103, SARASWATHIPURAM
      EXTENSION, SAKLESHPUR,
      HASSAN DISTRICT-573 134.            ... RESPONDENTS

           (BY SRI PRATHEEP K.C., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
           SRI PRAKASH M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)


     THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.01.2013
PASSED IN MVC NO.31/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, MACT, SAKLESHPUR, AWARDING A
COMPENSATION OF RS.2,34,542/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A.
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

     THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                         JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and

learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and

award dated 16.01.2013 passed in M.V.C.No.31/2011 on the file

of the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Sakaleshpur ('the Tribunal'

for short).

3. The parties are referred to as per their original

rankings before the Tribunal to avoid confusion and for the

convenience of the Court.

4. The contention of the Insurance Company before the

Tribunal is that the driver of the vehicle was not having valid and

effective driving license to drive the tractor- trailer and was

having driving license only to drive the tractor.

5. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in

MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,

reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663, the very contention of the

Insurance Company cannot be accepted and the vehicle involved

in the accident is a light motor vehicle, whose unladen weight is

less than 7,800 Kgs. and the said judgment is applicable to the

facts on hand. Hence, I do not find any merit in the appeal to

reverse the findings of the Tribunal.

6. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is dismissed.

(ii) The amount in deposit, if any, be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.

(iii) The Registry is directed to transmit the records to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.

Sd/-

JUDGE

ST