These appeals are filed by the claimants praying

to set-aside the common judgment and award dated

18.06.2014 passed by the Senior Civil Judge & MACT,

Channagiri in MVC.Nos.57 and 58/2013.

2.

For the sake of convenience, parties are

referred as per their status before the Tribunal.

3.

Heard

Sri.Hanumanthappa

A,

learned

advocate for the claimants, Smt, Suma A Patel,

learned counsel for R.1 and Sri G Shankar Goud,

learned advocate for R.2.

4. Facts in brief are as under:

4

On 23.10.2012 when the petitioner in MVC 58/13

Nanda was riding the bike along with his friend Shankar,

who is the petitioner in MVC 57/2013 at 9.15 am from

Basavarajapura and when they were on Davanagere-

Channagiri Road, a KSRTC bus bearing Regn.No.KA-17/F-

1207 being driven in high speed came from the opposite

direction and dashed the bike in which petitioners were

travelling. Due to the accident, the petitioners fell down

and sustained grevious injuries. Claim petitions were filed

seeking compensation against the driver, owner and

insurer of the KSRTC bus.

On behalf of the petitioners, evidence of the

claimants and one Dr.Shanthkumar C J was led as PWs 1

to 3 respectively and Exs.P.1 to P.63 were marked. On

behalf of the respondents, the driver of the KSRTC bus was

examined as RW1 and Ex.R.1 - the authorisation letter was

marked.

The tribunal after going through the evidence and

documents on record, has concluded that the driver of the

KSRTC bus is negligent and responsible for the accident

5

and held issue No.1 in the affirmative, however, dismissed

the claim petitions on the ground that the rider of the bike

failed to prove that he had possessed valid and effective

driving licence at the time of accident.

5. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the

claimants have preferred these appeals.

6. This Court has perused the impugned judgment

and award passed by the tribunal and considered the

materials on record.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that

rider of the bike not possessing a valid driving licence is

not a ground to dismiss the claim petitions, especially

when the tribunal has held the driver of the offending

KSRTC bus responsible for the accident. He has referred

to the following Apex Court judgments in support of his

contention:

(i)

DINESH

KUMAR

alias

DINESH

vs

NATIONAL

INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS reported in

(2018)1 SCC 750

6

(ii)

SARASWATI PALARIYA AND OTHERS vs NEW INDIA

ASSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS reported in 2019 ACJ

42

Referring to these two judgments, learned counsel for the

petitioners would contend that though the claimant Nanda

was not possessing a valid driving licence as on the date of

the accident, police after investigation have charge

sheeted the driver of the KSRTC bus. The tribunal has

given a finding that the driver of the KSRTC bus was rash

and negligent in driving and has caused the accident but

has wrongly dismissed the claim petitions on the ground

that rider of the bike had not possessed the driving

licence.

8. It is the further submission of the learned

counsel for the petitioners that assuming that petition filed

by the rider of the bike is to be dismissed on the ground of

not possessing driving licence, the tribunal was not

justified in dismissing the petition filed by the pillion rider.

7

9. Learned counsel for the respondent/KSRTC

submitted that as the rider of the bike was not possessing

valid driving licence, then the rider of the bike should also

be held as contributor to the accident. In support of the

said proposition, learned counsel relied on a Division Bench

decision of this Court in MFA 5025/2012 decided on

12.12.2014 wherein it is held that if the driver of the

vehicle does not possess valid driving licence and accident

has occurred, contributory neglience to the extent of 25%

is to be attributed to the rider of the vehicle who has

driven the vehicle without driving licence.

10. This Court has considered the rival contentions

raised by the parties. The judgment