Sri M Ramakrishnappa Vs Sri Narasimhagowda

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF W.C. ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.11.2012 PASSED IN WCA/FC/CR16/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, SUB DIVISION-5, BANGALORE, ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

Learned counsel for both sides are present.

¶28

This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants under Section 30(1) of W.C. Act, challenging the judgment and award dated 26.11.2012 passed in WCA/FC/CR-16/2011 on the file of the Court of Labour Officer and Commissioner for

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:34551 MFA No. 6076 of 2013

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Workmen Compensation, Sub Division-5, Bannerghatta Road, Karmika Bhavan, Bangalore-29.

¶32

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the both sides. The ranks of the parties are retained as per Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

¶33

The Brief facts of the case are that, one Sri. Naveen Kumar met with an accident on 20.04.2010 and his parents filed petition before the Tribunal for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.4,45,420/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a., from the date of 19.05.2010 till the date of deposit. Being aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is filed and mainly contended that the driver of the vehicle has no transport license. As such, the Tribunal has exonerated the insurance company and fixed the liability against the owner of the vehicle.

¶34

The substantial question that arises for

¶35

consideration is:

¶36

"Whether the Tribunal was justified that exonerating the Insurance Company and

¶37

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:34551 MFA No. 6076 of 2013

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

fastening the liability upon the owner of the vehicle only on the ground that the driver did not possess a valid transport driving licence?"

¶40

6. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others¹ and contended that in the present case, the driver was holding only a valid LMV (Light Motor Vehicle) driving licence and was driving a transport vehicle without any endorsement. On that basis, the Tribunal exonerated the Insurance Company from its liability and fastened the liability upon the owner of the vehicle. As per the above citation, insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

i. The appeal is allowed.

¶43

ii. It is stated by the learned counsel for the appellants that the owner has not deposited any amount till date. Therefore, the Insurance Company is directed to deposit the

¶44

1 (2016) 4 SCC 298

¶45