(1.) Insurance Company as well as claimant are in appeal challenging the judgment and order passed by the II Addl. Senior Civil Juge and A.M.A.C.T., Dharwad, (for short, 'Tribunal') in M.V.C. No.234/2009 whereby petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') by the claimant is partly allowed holding that the petitioner/claimant is entitled for Rs.2,07,695/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization fastening the liability on the owner as well as the insurance company and directing the insurance company to deposit the compensation amount within 30 days from the date of the award.
(2.) The facts in brief are that claimant being the legal representative of the deceased Gangubai, the victim of the road traffic accident which occurred on 08.04.2008 filed petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation alleging actionable negligence on the driver of the mini goods tom tom vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA- 28/7700 (offending vehicle) duly insured with the insurance company appellant in M.F.A. No.25829/2011. On service of summons, insurance company appeared and contested the claim. The defence taken by the insurer was the driver of the offending vehicle was authorized to drive light motor vehicle (LMV), whereas he was driving transport vehicle at the time of the accident. Hence, there being violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, no liability can be fastened on the insurance company and requires to be exonerated. Owner-respondent No.1 therein filed written statement contending that the offending vehicle was insured with the insurance company and had valid insurance policy at the time of the accident. Hence, liability to pay compensation, if any, has to be fixed on the insurance company. Based on the pleadings, Tribunal framed the issues. On appreciation of evidence on record, Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the driver of the offending vehicle was qualified to drive LMV in terms of the driving licence possessed by him. The offending vehicle in question being a transport vehicle i.e., Bajaj minidor GVW-1150 with seating capacity of one the policy has coverage to the third party. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for compensation only under the heads, loss of estate and medical expenditure and accordingly awarded compensation under these heads amounting to Rs.2,07,695/-. Being aggrieved by the same, claimant is in appeal challenging the impugned judgment and order seeking enhancement of compensation.
(3.) Learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the deceased was working as a Headmistress in Government Primary School, Mulawad, Taluk Bijapur, and she was earning a sum of Rs.18,577/- per month. The deceased/victim sustained grievous injuries in the accident in question, she was admitted at BLDE Hospital, Bijapur, as an inpatient and undergone multiple surgeries. Thereafter she was shifted to Dr. Joshi Hospital, Hubballi, where she succumbed to the injuries on 12.07.2008. The only ground on which the Tribunal denied the compensation under the different heads including the loss of dependency is for the reason that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess the required endorsement to drive the transport vehicle. Indeed it is not in dispute that the driver possessed valid and effective driving licence to drive the LMV. In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2017) AIR SC 3668, it is not mandatory for the driver possessing the licence to drive LMV to obtain an endorsement in order to drive a transport vehicle of that class. Hence, the claimant is entitled to compensation under the different heads apart from loss of estate and medical expenses. Thus, it is contended that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meager and contrary to the material evidence placed on record. Accordingly, he seeks for enhancement of compensation fixing the liability on the insurer.