NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. CHANNABASAVANA GOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are filed by insurer questioning the correctness and legality of the judgment and award passed by MACT, Bangalore in MVC Nos. 3370/2007 & 3371/2007 dated 15.09.2008, whereunder claim petitions have been allowed in part and compensation of Rs. 3,02,400/- and Rs. 12,000/- has been awarded by fastening the liability on insurer. Heard Smt. Harini Shivananda, learned counsel appearing for insurer and Sri. R. Chandrashekar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 in both the appeals. In MFA No. 135/2009 notice to respondent No. 2 is held sufficient vide order dated 17.08.2012 and Respondent No. 3 is served and unrepresented. In MFA No. 134/2009 service of notice on respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has been held sufficient by this Court vide order dated 03.07.2012.

(2.) It is the contention of Smt. Harini Shivananda, learned counsel appearing for insurer that Tribunal erred in fastening the liability on insurance company without examining the driving licence marked as Exhibit R-2, which would clearly indicate that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident i.e. on 25.03.2007 and it was renewed from 02.04.2007 and as such Tribunal could not have fastened the liability on the insurer. She would also contend that compensation awarded in MFA No. 134/2009 is on the higher side and prays for reducing the compensation in the event of contention of insurer is not accepted by this Court. In support of her contentions she has relied upon the following judgments:

(3.) Per contra, Sri. R. Chandrashekar, learned counsel appearing for the claimants would support the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. He would also submit that under Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, even if an application is made for renewal of license after a period of 30 days from the date of expiry of licence, though it would be renewed from the date of renewal it cannot be held that such driver was disqualified to hold the driving licence and as such Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability on the insurer and prays for dismissal of the appeal.