THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.08.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.802/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. MACT, SAUNDATTI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION & SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)

1. This present appeal is filed by the appellant, through his guardian, challenging the judgment and award dated 11.08.2020 passed in MVC No.802 of 2017 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional M.A.C.T., Saundatti.

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

3. On 03.04.2016, the minor petitioner was crossing the road to go to his house. At that time, the driver of the tractor bearing registration No.KA-24/T-3815 was riding his offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and without observing pedestrian moving on the road, dashed to the petitioner and caused accident. The petitioner sustained grievous injuries. The father of the petitioner has spent huge amount towards the medical expenses. The accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor bearing registration No.KA-24/T-3815. The petitioner, through his father and natural guardian, filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking for compensation on the account of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident by the petitioner.

4. Notice was issued to the respondent No.1. The owner of the tractor did not appear through counsel and did not file a statement of objections.

5. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contented that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident. It is contented that there is a violation of policy conditions. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the Insurance Company.

6. The petitioner/appellant, in order to prove the claim petition, examined the father as PW-1 and got marked documents as Exs. P-1 to P-93. The respondents have not led any oral or documentary evidence.

7. The Tribunal, after assessing the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part and awarded compensation of ₹1,75,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, and held that the owner of the tractor is liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner.

8. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the petitioner/appellant has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant and the learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company and the policy was in force as on the date of the accident. He submits that even if the driver was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence, the Tribunal ought to have directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest and thereafter recover the same from the owner of the tractor. To buttress his argument, he has placed reliance on the Full bench of this Court in the case of New India¹2020 (2) KCCR 1405 Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Yellawwa. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.

11. Per Contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident. He further submits that a charge sheet was filed against the driver of the tractor for the offence under Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He submits that the Tribunal was justified in directing the owner of the tractor to deposit the compensation amount. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

1