{N THE Him comm" or-' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED was THE 20*" DAY OF NOVEMBER 2UG8
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTECE K.N.KEsHAvANARAm:~jA%:'%-V
MFA No. 95i2008(M\:')
Cfw
MFA No.2266f2QD8(N!'*./)
iN MFANO 950? 2038
BETXNEEN
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE co 1_*;__
mvassowm omce No.11, 2
15' FLOGR, 1" MAIN,
{DEFENCE COLONY,
NEARBMSRICIRCLE-i, _ -.
mo ft. ROAD, IN DHQANAGAR,
1" STAGE, aANGAL0RE.33, _ '
svns REGiON,{\L-.OFF¥C£§, 2. _ -
mg omawmu iN8§lRfi.NCE C%O"LT[3; _ "V
N0x44:45,4"T?'«FLQ0R...~;'. * A' .
LEO sHoPP:Ns_;cQMP'a--E;<, '
RESIDENCY Fe~::;A{,s;«:.;._ ,
3.ANGALoRE-T569 025:1: -
RE? BY" ms BEPL%T'{_M§&N!EGER . '
APPELi_ANT
v _ (aajfi 3 RA.Jfi'&~s2.:;su DHARSHAN, mus.)
" A
V'tffQ.U¥?E D{3[°3{3A KHAEJAR SAB
AGE£"ABGUT 52 YEARS
~~ RIQ.{)0E3E)ENAHALL| WLLAGE,
KSATHYAVARA POST,
" NANISGUER, HCJBLE
HOSKOTE TALUK,
BFHNGALORE RURAL EESTRECT
*2 CHANDPASHA
SIOJATE DODDA KHADAR 33.8
AGED ABOUT 3? YEARS
RiO.DODDENfisHALLi WLLAGE,
K $ATHYAVARA POST,
NANDGUBI, HOBLI
HOSKOTE TALUK,
RE RURAL DIST
3 KHASH91 SEAR
SfO.LATE @099; KHABAR SI'-XB
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
RfO.%DDENfié-IALLI VILLAGE,
K SATHYAVARA POSTE
NAND(3UD¥, HOELI
HOSKOTE TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL [3!S°?RlC?
4 EBRAHHM ,
3;o.LATE DQEJDA KHADAR SAB;
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R!0..DC)£)D£NAHALL! VILLAGQ,
K SATHYAVARA P037, * =
NANBGUDS, H{)BL¥
HOSKOTE TALUK, _
BANGALORE RURAL D!STR%$"E'--. '
5 RfiMfiNJ¥NAPPA ' _ 1
- MmORs:0.MuN:KENcHA?PA:
RfO.E)ODi3.f3.'ULURL,1-'<z"E'LL£¥GE'- _
HosKoT.E«-"main I
a¢NGAt_0RET'LRL;.::::A;D1:fsTR:c,:T-_ '
...REESPON[}ENT$
(BY spit."r§i'T:é::3.s§%;6gLAt€%§'as;s§:'N;ég'Aavfiifi RM
R5 SERVED} T - -
mas 'rea%;sC£L:A'rsrE;<5u.$"FERST APPEAL SS FELED U13 173(1)
OF MV AC'? AGAINST 'me JUQGMENT AND AWARB DATED
29.8.2529? 9As7::En':N"r.-awrz NO. 862Uf20f35 an THE FILE or: THE X»
ABEZETIONAL JU coma? OF SMALL CAUSES, MEM BER, MAST,
METROEPQLHIAN ARE;i¥,"BANGALORE, (SCCH.N0.8), AWAREHNG A
CQM¥7'EN.3§.TEON_ OF RS. 1,80,0%- W¥TH INTEREST @ 6% P13. FROM
L' THE' DA;T.E_E'0FPETIT¥0N 'rm REALISATKJN.
in 'M FA {SF 20%
AA 1, Sm CHO"?! BEE
wro LATE mum FMADAR SAB
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R13-'xT [3O¥f){3ENAHi3.LLi VILLAGE
K SATH'Yf~'{\fARA F--"*{')S'F,
NANDAGEJQ: HOBU
HGSKOTE,
BANGALORE RURAL
SR! CHANDPASHA
SID LATE DODDA KHADER SAB
AG E UT 38 YEARS
I'-.3
9.1.:
REAT DOfJDENAHALLE \flLifi\GE
K SATHYAVARA POST,
NANDAGUDI HOBL3
HOSKOTE,
BANGALORE RURAL
3 SR! KHASEM sag
3,40 LATE Beam KHMBER 833.3 _
AGED ABOUT 3? YEARS 1 '= ._ -1' , «
R;AT [3ODDENAHAE.Li V£Ll.AE3E .. A
K SATHYAVARA POST, NAN DAGUDE HOB
HOSKGTE, BANGALORE RuR_AL " "
4 sm IBRAHIM
3:0 LATE mama KHAIDER
AGED ASOUT 36 YEARS = '
Rim DO9E'JEE\iAHALi..E '?w:L:...7aGE' "
K SATHYAVARA P03}, _E<lfi*..N omu :3_m"%<:-,._: 'FLOOR, IMAEN
~ V _ 'DE'EEN*£§EE._C§Z3LONY, NEAR 3 Ni SR1 CERCLE
" 10i'r?t'_.*-R_{}".§.D, ma DIRANAGAR
A ' ISTfi.(3¥~Z, BANGALQRE-560 038
REE? '3-¥«r:"$ MANAGER
RESPGNDENTS
"j?r:-::s MiSCEi_U3.NEOUS FERST APPEAL is FILEEE uss °:?3(2:»
THESE MESCELi.}3\NEOUS FIRST APPEALS COMWG ON
FOR HEARENG, THiS BAY THE COURT DELNERED THE
FOLLGVWNG:
JUDGMENT
As both these appeais, one by the ciaimants and ané§héTr’iqy
the insurer; arise from the same judgment and
Tribunal, these appeals were hearrj….togetheérViifirarfifvare’being
disposed of by this common judgment}, . ii’
2
2. The appellants in MFA”lSE§’;2,286fV2eI}.8′ trfiéivriiiéinzantsiii
whiie the appeiiant in h*!.E’A N9′;§$r2’fl{i8″i._§s ii§¢’insurér of the
effending vehicie beferetrié Tribuinzréiiv V .
3, I shat!” rarer to t§’i’锧3ér’£i-és’ riéfieriérauée to their ranking
before T: . V’
4. “f’ha iappéiia’nt.3 “k;-§i~i1g the wife and major sons of one
Dsvriciaivlflhader éab~fil§;i_éc:aim petition in MVC No.862G!2005 before
,At;r:’a. Bérsgaioreg seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,GODi» for
thieéi.-.g§eritra:’«V’In_f__tr:i§”iéaid Dodda Khader Sab who died in the motor
venuicie a:c:.a::’~.v£’r-*.§nt that occurred at about 6.90 AM on 23.3.2065,
The__ respcfiandent-insurer contesied the ctaim petitien an various
A’ ‘~~g:jr’o;:ri’ds inciuding the ground that the driver of the cffending vehicle
i not possess a valié and effective driving iicense as on the date
of the accident, therefore, the insurer is not iiable to indemnify ihe
insured in respect of the claim of the ciaimants. ‘fhe Tribunal afier
hoidtng enquiry, by the judgment: under appeal, hetd thet the
accident was safety due te the negligence of the driver
Canter vehicle bearing Ne.KA~19.A-6906, whtch
the appettent in MFA No.9Sf20G8. Having regerct’ ‘t’e~the’V”et1it§enee ” ” ‘V
ptaced by the claimants as to the avociaétiee; Eneehte.’ aha the’
deceased, the Trtbunai quantified. theV”‘tteée of
Rs.1,60,fi08f- and by awarding cerwentienal
heads, the Tribunal awereed otV’AReA;1,80,G9G!».
On the quefiien of liability,’Vth’e’ insurer of the
offending vehiqte”:h.a}t fattest gte.7pr’et}eh”–t’ttat___the» erhser of the said
vehtcle did rtet trettttlhveertetttectiee ticense to drive Class
of vehia§te%teséei~.§te;5 tnv;’3the.e”c~e’§deht «aeen that date. Therefore, the
Trthunat’ha#ing regerett5″th:e~-tfecumerate produced by the insurer
namety_ the e’epg”efVth.e eirivhérth license of the driver of the offending
..v”Ve?£’i(EEé hetd that drhrer posseseed a valid ctrtvteg ttcense as on
eceident te drive the Ctass of vehicle invotved in the
ax:¢e~e’n:.’ ‘.V–“tjz*_§: Vthet View of the matter the Tribunal directed the
ieeurer. saute offending vehicte to pay the etttére compensation
n V’ ” .,te§?et4herteith interest at 6% pa frem the date of petition tit! the date
.’ heft hajrhment.
5. Being dée-satisfied tetth the quantum of cerrtpeneetien
awarded, the cieiments, and being aggrieved by the finding he the
@
ml
9. Learned ceunsei appearing for the cieirnants meée
aveiiabte a copy cf the driving Eicence of the driver which further
indicates that the driver was 2133:: authorised to drive trehegsert
vehécte w.e.f 2″z’.4.2{3$4 and the same was valid up
The accident in qttestten has occurred on 23.3.2855.
above. it ts cieer that as on the datectrt-he ]the’:$1ivev:j
possessed a driving Eicence to drive trensp::ctt’ivehrcte°. –. ‘E’-;.erat_}’t’.
subsequent endersement author:i$t:fi’§.Vthe driver rte trsrispcrt ‘
vehicte is not accepted on the greurV{ci»».that_Vthe .sameMhs_.§i net been
produced on record} proctuceci.Vt[Vbjtr’tthe insurer cteariy
indicates that as on the (tat-ev.ef:’the– eccittehtvttheiihdriver possessed
the drie;¥ingiVti_c’erijc.e ttenspoit vehicle coming within
the cetegery cf’tightA:_:m’&er:”vehicles. As per the definition of
Sectien 2r2?:’3~~, t_he~ vehicie to” be called es Eight motor vehicie, the
oni3tj’:cet3ctitionA. is, ttsitmievden weight shouid not exceed 7500 kgs.
‘?*hcugh”,’-.t:_he’férisurer contended that the vehicte in question was a
heats? gecciejeehicte, to substantiate this contention, it has not
prodtzcevctlahy material before the Court. in the absence of any
sec’r:«.._materiai, the contentien cf the insurer that it is heavy goods
— Evehiicle cannot be accepted. Having regard to the fact that the
Wérehicie in question felts within the category of Eight motor vehicte
am etnce the driver possessed iicence to drive Eight transport
vehicie as p 2, in my cpinicn, the Trébunet is justified in
hctdieg that the driver of the offending vehicle pcsseseed vetid
and effective driving ticence as on the date of the accident’
the Ctass of vehicie invotved tn the accident.
offending vehicte has been vaiicily incu.re_c_i withhttieiiirfeetjnndec-tght”
insurer and the policy issued was in tcrce”e..e’ on».thej”dat’e:”cf the
accident. Under these circe?”nstencee;~..theV Ta*i;b”unja!..,_VVhVae ntct.,t>
committed any error in eedciling the’«.tiab.iVlity an inevitrer of the
offending vehicle. I see ‘égggroutid tevi’nt.erf:etet with the said finding
of the Tribunal. Therefore. there 5’3: rj_o m~a£it7~in_.£ae appeat flied by
the insurer. Acc4c’f;:fin’g|y,;3-1 anstAter’k3o:i:nt–V’l\te..1..;’
he eeentoettjithefjudgment, the Tribunal has
taken the mcnthtyinct3rn,e'”‘c’f:t’Eae’ deceased at Rs.2,{)€3Ui- and after
deducting “1<.%'_$"" cersonal expenses cf the deceased
has.et.Iaetified theteas of dependency at Rs.1,6t'3,E3GO!- by adopting
thevthtr-n;tt'iette§'hc§_ 18, as actmittediy the deceased was aged 60 years.
it 'ii<"-.__th1e"'cc'nt_eItt'gc:'i of the learned counsel for the claimants that the
inccme..__cf that deceased at Rs.2,0£J8f- per month taken by the
Tti¥eun'a'%..« tcc {cw having regard to the evidence on record.
-,,$3\cceés”dieg to the ciaimants, the deceased was doing eucalyptus
__p§o!es business and he was earning mere than Rs.10,00{}f~ pm.
from the said business. Absclutety, no documentary evidence is
produced by the ciaimante to substantiate this contention. Except
the crat evidence of the wife and one of the eons of the cteceaeed,
b