LAWS(KAR)-2011-6-85

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. LAKSMAMMA ALIAS GANGAMMA

Decided On June 14, 2011
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BANGALORE Appellant
V/S
LAKSMAMMA ALIAS GANGAMMA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 2nd respondent in MVC. No.305/2007 on the file of MACT, Tumkur has come up in this appeal impugning the judgment and award dated 29.4.2008 passed therein.

(2.) THE case of appellant is that one Devaraja, aged about 30 years met with an accident on NH.4 resulting in his death. THE said accident is stated to have taken place due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing registration No.TN-23/AC-7727. Hence, the legal representatives of deceased Devaraja filed claim petition seeking compensation for the death of Devaraja in the aforesaid accident. THE Tribunal on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record proceeded to partially allow the claim petition awarding compensation to the claimants in a sum of Rs.6,73,000/- payable with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till date of deposit of entire amount.

(3.) HEARD the counsel for appellant and as well as respondents/claimants. Counsel for the respondents would rely upon the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Rukmani & Ors. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 1999 ACJ 171 : (1999 AIR SCW 4712), wherein it is held as under: "Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Section 96(2) (b) (ii) [section 149(2)(a)(ii) of 1988 Act] - Motor Insurance - Driving licence - Defences available to insurance company-Burden of proof - Insurance Company relied upon the evidence of investigating officer who stated that driver of the offending vehicle did not submit the licence since he was not having it - Investigating Officer did not inform the Motor Vehicles Inspector about it who was required to check whether the driver was holding a driving licence - Insurance company did not summon the driver and no record from the Regional Transport Authority was produced - Whether the insurance company had discharged its burden of establishing that the driver had no licence so as to exonerate it from its liability - Held: No."