B K HARISH Vs. NAGARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Miscellaneous First Appeal No.7643/2010 is filed by the owner challenging the liability fastened against the owner in MVC No.43/2008. The claimant has filed Cross Objection in MFA CROB:52/2012 in respect of MVC No.43/2008 questioning the liability fixed on the owner and also questioning the quantum of compensation awarded in the said case. The Miscellaneous First Appeal No.6304/2012 is filed by the claimant questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MVC No.45/2008 on the file of the Fast Track Court at Sagar.

(2.) I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the owner, learned counsel for the Insurance Company as well as learned counsel for the claimant.

(3.) The appellant in MFA No.7643/2010 contended that the second respondent is the driver of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-18/A-411 TATA Mobile 207 and the Tribunal while answering the issues relating to liability, relied upon the Judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3496/2008 and Civil Appeal No.6081/1997, even though these judgments having no relevance, relied upon the said judgments and erroneously fixed the liability on the owner. It is further contended that, admittedly the driver was holding the LMV license covering the light passenger and light goods carriage vehicle and he cannot be said that the he was not possessed the effective driving license to drive light goods carriage permit matador and the laden weight is upto 7500 Kg and the person holding driving license of LMV could be authorized to drive light goods carriage vehicle also and hence, the very fastening the liability on the owner is not sustainable in the eye of law. The owner counsel also relied upon the recent judgment reported in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 2017 AIR(SC) 3668, and argued that the insurer is liable to pay the compensation.