The main legal point established in the judgment is that in cases of driving license violations, the insurer shall satisfy the award and then recover the same from the owner of the vehicle, as per the principle established by relevant case laws and Section 10(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988.

JUDGMENT :

K. NATARAJAN, J.

1. Though these appeals came up for admission, with the consent of both the counsels, they are heard finally. MFA No.23334/2011 is filed by the Insurer, whereas MFA No.24717/2011 is filed by the claimants assailing the judgment and award dated 21.04.2011 passed by the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Belgaum (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in MVC No.1956/2010.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant-Insurer as well as the respondents-claimants in both these appeals.

3. The rankings of the parties before the Tribunal is retained for brevity.

4. The claimants who are legal heirs of one Ganesh Ravaji Patil, who died in the road traffic accident, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short), claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-, inter alia contending that, On 28.08.2010 at about 8.30 a.m., when the said Ganesh Ravaji Patil was proceeding to bring rice from Sunandabai Nago Patil and when he was going on the left side of the road, at that time, a rider of Hero Honda Splendor Motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-22/U- 6741, came from Lokolli side proceeding towards Khanapur in a rash and negligent manner with excessive speed, so as to endanger human life, lost control over his vehicle and dashed against the said Ganesh and caused accident. Due to which the said Ganesh died in the accident. The claimants being the wife and son of deceased filed the petition claiming compensation.

In pursuance to the notice, the respondent No.1- owner of the vehicle remained ex-parte. The respondent No.2-Insurer filed statement of objections by resisting the claim of petitioner and denied the accident in question. However, they admitted the issuance of policy but taken the contention that the rider of the motorcycle did not hold valid and effective driving license as on the date of the accident. Therefore, it was contended that if any liability the same shall be fixed on the owner of the motorcycle and not on the Insurer. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

Based on the rival pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

i. Whether the petitioner proves that due to rash and negligent driving of Hero Honda Splendor motor cycle bearing No.KA- 22/U-6741 the accident occurred resulted in the death of Ganesh?

ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation?

iii. What order or award? To substantiate their contention, the claimant No.1 examined herself as PW1 and got marked eight documents at Exs.P1 and P8. On behalf of respondent RW.1 has been examined and got marked Ex.R1 Insurance Policy.

After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal answered issue No.1 in the affirmative and allowed the petition in part awarding compensation of Rs.1,70,000/- under the following heads with interest at 6% p.a. and directing the insurer to pay the award amount.

Assailing the judgment and fastening the liability the Insurer filed MFA No.23334/2011, whereas claimants filed MFA No.24717/2011 for enhancement of compensation.

5. The learned Counsel for the Insurer vehemently contended that the rider of the motorcycle was holding driving license only for HMV as per Ex.P8 but he is not holding the driving license for riding the motorcycle with gear i.e., Hero Honda Splendor and thereby violated the conditions of the policy. Where the owner of the vehicle entrusted the motorcycle to a person who did not have a valid and effective driving license to drive the motorcycle, the liability fastened on the Insurer is not correct. It is also contended that any