RENU Vs. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the claimants is against the judgment and award passed by the learned III Addl.Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Bangalore, in MVC.No.4344/2009, dated 15th June 2010 seeking enhancement of compensation and challenging the finding of the Tribunal fastening liability to pay compensation on the owner while absolving the liability on the insurance company.

(2.) CLAIMANTS are the parents of deceased Vinodkumar who died in the accident that occurred on 23.9.2008. It is the case of the claimants that on 23.9.2008 at about 9.45 p.m. when Vinodkumar was crossing road on Tumkur road, a lorry bearing registration No.KA -21 -A -4297 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to him due to which, he sustained grievous injuries all over the body. He was taken to Premier Sanjeevini hospital, Bangalore and during the course of treatment, he died on account of injuries. As such, claimants filed claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondent -insurance company has relied upon the decision of the Madras Court in the case of Nagamani -vs - Singaravelu in CMA (NPD) No.10/2004, disposed of on 11th June 2009 to contend that, in the absence of such an endorsement, as the driver had no valid driving licence to drive hazardous goods vehicle involved in the accident in question and as there is violation of policy conditions, the liability is on the owner of the vehicle and the Tribunal is right is exonerating the insurance company from payment of compensation. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., -vs - K.Ramaswamy in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1988 of 1999, disposed of on 27th October 2006, it is held that the main purpose of the qualification and training prescribed in Rule 9 of the Rules seems to equip the driver of the tanker lorries transporting hazardous substances to meet certain emergencies and to make him aware of certain basic emergency procedures, in case of any spillage of hazardous substances transported in the vehicle is caused due to an accident. Further it is held in the said case that the evidence discloses that the tanker lorry was driven rashly and negligently by its driver and hit against the deceased who was attending to the tyre of the lorry in which he was working as a cleaner near the lorry which was parked on the side of the road. The failure on the part of the driver of the tanker lorry to undergo the training prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules does not seem to have in any way contributed to the cause of the accident. In that circumstance, it is held that insurer is not entitled to avoid its liability to indemnify the insured.