The insurer is liable to pay third-party compensation despite driver non-compliance with licensing, as established in prior rulings.

JUDGMENT :

UMESH M. ADIGA, J.

1. Both these appeals arises out of the judgment and award dated 30.03.2022 passed by the I Addl.Small Causes Judge and MACT, Bengaluru (for short `Tribunal'), in MVC No.291/2020.

2. Claimant has filed MFA.No.5001/2022 seeking enhancement of compensation and owner of the vehicle has filed MFA.No.4851/2022 for fastening of the liability on the insurer.

3. Both the appeals arise out of common judgment and award, therefore they are taken up together for disposal.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

5. The brief facts of the case are that, on 06.12.2019 at about 8.00 a.m., the petitioner was going on a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-52-HB-7197 on Kanakapura road; Near Bolore village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru south, he met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of Tractor bearing registration No.KA-42-T- 5986. As a result, the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He has spent substantial amount towards medical expenses. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he has suffered from permanent disability. With these reasons, the claimant has prayed for awarding of compensation.

6. The respondent No.1 was the insurer and respondent No.2 was the owner of the offending Tractor. Respondent No.1 filed its written statement denying the averments of the claim petition and also denied its liability to pay the compensation. With these reasons, it prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

7. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues.

8. The claimant to prove his case, examined three witnesses as PW-1 to PW-3 and marked 17 documents, as per Exs.P-1 to P-17. The respondent-Insurance Company has examined two witnesses as RW-1 and RW-2 and marked Exs.R-1 to Ex.R-4.

9. The Tribunal after hearing both parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment, awarded the following amount of compensation:

10. Heard the arguments.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate; The Tribunal has not considered the income of the claimant properly and the disability assessed is also on the lower side; The compensation awarded under other heads are also on the lower side. Hence, prayed for enhancement of the compensation.

12. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, owner of the vehicle contends that at the time of the accident, son of the owner of the vehicle by name Mahadeve Gowda was driving the tractor and trailer and immediately after the accident people gathered at the spot. Son of respondent No.2 apprehending that they may manhandle him he escaped from the spot of the accident. Someone had given name of Girija Singh as driver of said tractor. The police have registered case against him alleging that he was driving tractor. Therefore, due to some misrepresentation police believed that Girija Singh was driving the said vehicle. The said Mahadeve Gowda son of the owner of the vehicle was having a valid and effective driving license. Despite these facts were pleaded before the Tribunal, it has not considered the same. Therefore, prays to direct the insurer to pay the compensation.

13. Learned counsel for the insurer contends that undisputedly driver of the vehicle whose name is shown in the charge sheet was not having a valid and effective driving license. There are no materials to prove that the said Mahadeve Gowda son of the owner was driving the said vehicle. The alleged driver of the vehicle did not challenge the charge