JUDGMENT

Heard Sri.S.S.Koliwad and Sri.Girish S. Hiremath, learned counsel for the parties.

2. Insurance company is in appeal challenging the validity of the judgment and award passed in MVC No.703/2009 on the file of Fast Track-I At, Dharwad.

3. Facts of the case are as under:

3.1 Claimants being the dependants of Gangappa S/o Sabanna Kadenavar laid a claim under Section 163-A of the M.V.Act in respect of the accidental death in road traffic accident involving motorcycle bearing No.KA-27/K- 3720 and truck bearing No.KA-25/B-2401 on 19.05.2009 at 9.30 p.m.

3.2 Claim petition was resisted by filing detailed written statement.

3.3 Tribunal on contest allowed the claim petition in a sum of Rs.3,40,628-00 as per II schedule of M.V.Act and fastened the liability on the insurance company of the truck.

4. Being aggrieved by the same, insurance company is in appeal.

5. Reiterating the grounds urged in appeal memorandum, Sri.S.S.Koliwad vehemently contended that rider of the motorcycle did not possess valid driving license as admittedly he was holding Learners License. Therefore insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation.

6. He also contended that since deceased was holding only learners license, contributory negligence is to be attributed to rider of the motorcycle. Therefore, appeal needs to be allowed.

7. He also contended that charge sheet is filed against the rider of the motorcycle and sought for allowing the appeal.

8. Per contra, Sri.Girish S. Hiremath contended that in a claim petition under Section 163-A, the question of negligence loses its significance and therefore, as against lorry, he is a third party and therefore, judgment of the trial court is perfectly justifiable and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

9. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, this Court has perused the material on record meticulously.

10. On such perusal of the material on record, accidental death of Gangappa S/o Sabanna Kadenavar being rider of the motorcycle bearing No.KA-27/K-3720 involving another truck bearing No.KA-25/B-2401 on 19.05.2009 at about 9.30 p.m. stands established by placing necessary oral and documentary evidence on record.

11. Admittedly, deceased possessed Learners License as is found from the material evidence on record. It is now settled principles of law that there cannot be any distinction between the Learners License and the regular License since the petition is under Section 163 A of the MV Act. More over, negligence loses its significance as rightly contended on behalf of he claimant in a caim laid u/sec

163-A of M.V. Act.

12. As against the truck, the rider of he motorcycle is a third party. Therefore, claimants are entitled to claim compensation.

13. Insofar as quantum of compensation is concerned, the same is as per II schedule of the M.V.Act. Accordingly, hardly, there is any scope for interference with the well reasoned order of the tribunal.

14. Hence, the following:

ORDER

i) Appeal is merit less and hence dismissed.

ii) Amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to the tribunal in accordance with law.