LAWS(KAR)-2017-9-114

GURUNATH Vs. MARUTI NARAYAN PURI AND OTHERS

Decided On September 01, 2017
GURUNATH Appellant
V/S
Maruti Narayan Puri And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though this matter is listed for admission, at the consent of both sides, the matter is heard on main. Perused the materials placed before this Court including copies of the deposition and exhibits produced by the learned counsel in the matter.

(2.) The present appellant was the claimant before the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gokak (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short) in MVC No. 1023/2009. The claim petition filed by him under S. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 came to be allowed in part awarding a compensation of a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards the injuries said to have been sustained by him in a Road Traffic Accident said to have occurred on 14-11-2006. However, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition as against respondent Nos. 3 and 4, who were the owner of a motor vehicle in which the claimant was said to have been travelling at the time of the accident and the insurer of the alleged offending vehicle respectively.

(3.) Regarding the liability of the insurer to pay compensation is concerned, admittedly, the driver of the alleged offending vehicle, by name Sri Laxmappa Yallappa Gadadi did not possess a pakka driving licence as at the time of the accident and he was examined as R.W. 3 and his evidence on this aspect is very clear. However, he has stated that a pakka licence holder instructor was also present along with him at the time of the accident in the same vehicle and he has complied other requirements of law as a learner's licence holder. He has named the said instructor as Shri Laxman Shivanappa Naganur, who was examined as R.W. 4 in the Tribunal. The said witness also has stated in support of the claimant stating that being a licence holder to drive the said class of vehicle, he was also present in the said vehicle along with the driver of the said vehicle. In spite of these two evidences, the Tribunal did not believe their evidence in totality for the reason that the very same driver of the alleged offending Jeep Sri Laxmappa Yallappa Gadadi was charge-sheeted by the jurisdiction police inter alia for the offence under S. 3 of the M.V. Act.