The court ruled that an expired driving license does not constitute a breach of insurance policy conditions, and deductions for personal expenses in compensation calculations should respect established legal principles.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘M.V.Act, 1988” for short) by the petitioners being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by Tribunal in MVC No.230/2015 dated 06.07.2018 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge & MACT-IV, Hosapete.

2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows:

On 12.02.2014, at about 7.50 p.m., a KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-07/F-913, due to mechanical defect, the bus was stationed on NH-7 Road, near Venkatagiri Kote, Swamy daba. The deceased was lying below the said bus to carryout its repair. At that time, the driver of the bus had taken all precautions by putting the indicator light, showing visibility of the stationed bus for repairs to other moving vehicles on the road. At that time, a lorry bearing Reg.No.MH-40/N-6264 came in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed against the stationed bus from the backside. The deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injures. The petitioners being the legal representatives of the deceased filed a claim petition seeking compensation on the ground that the deceased was the only bread earner in the family, and they have depending on the income of the deceased. Hence, prays to allow the claim petition.

3. The owner and the driver of the offending lorry despite service of notice remained unrepresented, and they were placed ex-parte.

4. The Insurance Company filed a statement of objections admitting that the offending lorry was covered with the policy from 25.11.2013 to 24.11.2014. It is contended that the driver of the offending lorry did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the Insurance Company.

5. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues.

6. To substantiate their case, petitioner No.2 was examined as P.W.1, and marked 6 documents as Exs.P1 to P6. The official of the Insurance Company was examined as R.W.1 and RTO Office was examined as R.W.2 and 7 documents were marked as Exs.R1 to R7. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence allowed the claim petition in part with costs, and awarded compensation of Rs.21,40,188/-. It is held that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, and the claim petition against the Insurance Company was dismissed. The petitioners, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and dismissal of the claim petition against the Insurance Company, have filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal.

7. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the driver of the offending lorry possessed a valid and effective driving license, and as of the date of the accident, the license was expired, and subsequently, the license was renewed. He submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in fastening the liability only on the driver and owner of the offending lorry. He submits that once if the driver possessed a driving license, and if it is expired, there is no bar to drive the vehicle. To buttress his arguments, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in the case of NAGAPPA @ NAGARAJA AND ANOTHER VS RAVI KUPALURU AND OTHERS IN MFA NO.103680/2015 C/W MFA NO.103681/2015 disposed of on 08.02.2019. He submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in dismissing the claim petitio