KRISHNAPRASAD ACHARYAACHARYA Vs. RAMESHLTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This miscellaneous first appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 05.08.2016 passed by the XVI Additional Judge and MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, in MVC.No.698/2015 fastening the liability on the insured instead of the insurer and also questioning the quantum of compensation awarded.

(2.) The claimants who are the parents and sister of deceased Saliz Acharya filed the claim petition before the Tribunal on the ground that the deceased died in the accident that occurred on 04.11.2014 at 6.00 a.m. In support of their claim first claimant got examined as P.W.1 and an eye witness as P.W.2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P14. The first respondent neither adduced any evidence nor produced any documents. The second respondent got examined its Officer as R.W.1 and Inspector of Motor Vehicles as R.W.2 and got marked Exs.R1 to R4. The Tribunal on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.12,30,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization and fastened the liability on the insured. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the present appeal is preferred by the claimants.

(3.) In the appeal memorandum it is contended that the Tribunal has committed a serious error in not appreciating the evidence on record. The Tribunal is not justified in coming to the conclusion that driver of the Tata 207 goods vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence to drive Tata 207 goods vehicle as on the date of the accident. Ex.R1-copy of the policy clearly shows that the vehicle involved in the accident is a light motor vehicle and its unladen weight is not exceeding 7,500/- k.g. and as such it is a light motor vehicle and transport endorsement is not required. Therefore, the liability fixed on the insured instead of on the insurer is erroneous. Further, the Tribunal has failed to note that the driver of the offending vehicle was not disqualified to drive transport vehicle as on the date of the accident and as such impugned judgment and award requires to be set aside fastening the liability on the insurer.