The liability for a motor vehicle accident can be on the owner and driver of the vehicle if there is no permit for the vehicle to ply. The insurance company can pay the compensation and recover it from the owner.

JUDGMENT :

The appeal in M.F.A.No.5280/2016 is filed by the owner of the passenger auto challenging the judgment and award passed in M.V.C.No.295/2014 dated 14.03.2016 fastening the liability on him, who has been arrayed as respondent No.2 before the Tribunal. The cross-objection in M.F.A. Crob. No.153/2022 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the claimants before the Tribunal is that on 02.03.2014 at about 1.00 to 4.00 p.m., when the deceased P. Malleshappa was traveling in a passenger auto bearing No.KA-34/A-7976 from Kogali to Kottur of Itagi-Kottur Road, when the auto reached near Sangameshwara Cross at Bankar Nagappa’s land at about 4.30 p.m., the driver of the said auto rickshaw drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and as a result, the driver lost control over the auto and turtled on the right side. As a result, deceased P. Malleshappa sustained injuries to his head and died at the spot.

3. It is the claim of the claimants that the deceased was hale and healthy doing agricultural work and also milk vending business and getting income of Rs.15,000/-per month. Due to untimely death of deceased, the petitioner No.1 lost her companion and affection of husband in her young age and petitioner Nos.2 to 4, who are the minor children of the deceased have lost love and affection of their father. The petitioner No.5 being the mother has lost her son. Hence, they claimed the compensation before the Tribunal.

4. In response to the notice, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 appeared through their advocate and filed their objection statement. In the objection filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2, they have disputed the entire case of the petitioners and contended that the driver of the vehicle possessed valid and effective driving license to drive such a class of vehicle and vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company and the driver of the vehicle has not violated any terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, they are not liable to pay any compensation.

5. The respondent No.3-Insurance Company has filed the objection statement disputing the entire claim of the claimants and contended that the driver was not having valid and effective driving license and knowing fully well that the driver had no valid driving license, handed over the vehicle and violated the terms and conditions of the policy. It is also contended that, there was no permit as on the date of the accident and vehicle was plied outside the permitted area and carried excess passengers exceeding the seating capacity and the vehicle had permit only to ply as per the permit issued by the concerned office. But, the vehicle was plied in Sangameshwara Cross i.e., Ittigi-Kottur main road near Banakar Nagappa’s land out of the permitted area on the date of the accident. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation.

6. The Tribunal, considering the material available on record, framed the issues and the petitioners, in support of their case, examined the petitioner Nos.1 and 4 as P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P4. The respondent Nos.2 and 1 examined themselves as R.Ws.1 and 2 respectively. The respondent No.3 examined its Administrative Officer as R.W.3 and examined the R.T.O. as R.W.4 and got marked the documents as Exs.R1 to R9.

7. The Tribunal, after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, allowed the claim petition granting compensation of Rs.10,29,000/- with interest at 6% per annum and fastened the liability on the driver and owner, who are respondent Nos.1 and 2. Hence, the owner has filed the appeal in M.F.A.No.5280/2016.

8. It is the contention of the appellant-owner in the appeal that the Tribunal failed to see that after having found that respondent No.3 has failed to prove that the driver was holding a valid driving license, ought not to have fastened the liability on him and ought to have fastened the liability on the Insurance Company