AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Sreenivase Gowda, J.—This appeal is by the insurer of offending vehicle challenging the award of the Tribunal on the ground of liability.
Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
For the sake of convenience parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal.
Brief facts of the case as pleaded in the claim petition are.
That on 28-8-02, when deceased Mahadevappa was returning from his daughter''s house at Singanailuru tillage, by walk near Milk Storage Centre, the bus bearing registration No. TN-01/N-734 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries and immediately he was taken to Kollegal Hospital, and from there, he was taken to Nimhans and from there, he was shifted to Victoria Hospital and treated as inpatient, and on 29-8-02, he succumbed to injuries. His wife, two major sons and two major daughters tiled a claim petition before the Mact, Kollegal, seeking compensation of Rs. 4.77,400/-. The Tribunal by impugned judgment and award has awarded compensation of Rs. 4,38,000/- with interest at. 6% p.a. and directed the driver, owner and insurer of the bus to pay the same to the claimants jointly and severally.
As there is no dispute regarding death of the deceased in a road traffic accident occurred on 28-8-02, due to rash and negligent driving of the offending bus by its driver, the only point that remains for my consideration in the appeal is:
Whether the Tribunal is justified in fastening liability against the insurer of offending bus?
Learned Counsel appearing for the insurer submits, the driver of the offending bus did not have an effective and valid driving licence to drive the bus which is a passenger service vehicle and Tribunal is not justified in fastening liability against the insurer by directing them to pay compensation to the claimants.
Whereas, learned Counsel appearing for owner submits, the driver of the bus had an effective and valid driving licence to drive the bus at the time of accident. The driving licence produced by the insurer at Ex.R.2 is an incomplete one, and he has got a Xerox copy of DL of the driver of the bus and has obtained, a certified copy of ''B'' register extract from the office of RTO Chamarajanogar and furnished a copy of the same on the learned Counsel appearing for the Insurer of the bus, who sought time to get the same verified from his client, and the matter was listed before Court on 13-1-11, 20-1-11. 27-1-11. 1-2-11, 3-2-11. 11-2-11 and t -3-11. On 1 -3-1 1 when the learned Counsel for the Insurer could not secure any clarification from his client - the insurer of the bus, the learned Counsel for the owner has produced a xerox copy of the driving licence and certified copy of B'' extract obtained from the RTO, Chamarajnagar along with a memo.
Again the 1-3-11 learned Counsel for the Insurer sought time to have the same verified from his Client and make his submission and therefore, the matter was treated as part heard and time was granted upto 7-3-11, Today, learned Counsel for the insurer requests for remanding the matter to the Tribunal to give an opportunity to the insurer to establish his contention that the driver of the offending bus did not possess an effective and valid driving licence.
Learned Counsel appearing for claimants submits, whenever the insurer takes up a contention in their statement of objections filed before the Tribunal, contending that the driver did not possess an effective and valid driving licence at the time of accident, a duty is cast upon them to establish their contention in accordance with law. Instead of doing so, they chose to produce an incomplete driving licence and tried to contend the driver did not possess an effective and valid driving licence. Now by production of a xerox copy of the driving licence along with the certified copy of 13'' register extract, obtained by the owner from the RTO, Chamarajnagar it is clear that the driver bad an effective and valid driving licence to drive the passenger service vehicle at the time of accident.
I have gone through the same and found that the driver of the offending vehicle had an effective and valid driving licence to drive the offending bus as on the date of accident and there is no reason to remand the matter to the Tribunal for reconsideration.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as devoid of marks.
Amount in deposit is ordered to be transferred to the Tribunal for disbursement in terms of the award of the Tribunal.
No order as to costs.