(Prayer: This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and award dated 28.11.2014, passed in Mvc.No.09/2013, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ron, awarding compensation of Rs.12,78,808/- along with interest at the rate of 6% P.A. from the date of petition till the date of deposit & etc.)

Oral Judgment

1. Challenging judgment and award dated 28.11.2014 passed by Senior Civil Judge and Member, MACT, Ron ('Tribunal' for short) in MVC no.9/2013, this appeal is filed.

2. Sri Karthik Ganachari, advocate appearing for Sri Suresh S.Gundi, learned counsel for appellant submitted that appeal was by insurer challenging finding of Tribunal on liability as well as on quantum. It was submitted, as per claimant on 24.12.2011 while claimant was walking on Gajendragad - Kushtagi road at 2:15 p.m., driver of crane no.KA-25/P-8425 drove it in rash and negligent manner and dashed against claimant. Due to same, claimant sustained grievous injuries and despite treatment, did not recover fully. Alleging loss of earning capacity, he filed claim petition against owner and insurer of crane.

3. On contest wherein claim petition was opposed on all grounds including that driver of crane had no valid and effective driving licence as on date of accident and there was breach of terms and conditions of policy, Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence.

4. Claimant examined himself along with Dr.Gavisiddappa Palled as PWs1 and 2 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P17. Insurer examined its official as RW1 and got marked Exhibits R1 to R3. On consideration, Tribunal held accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of crane by its driver and claimant was entitled for total compensation of ₹12,78,808/- with interest at 6% per annum from insurer. Aggrieved, appeal was filed.

5. Insofar as liability, it was submitted, to substantiate actionable negligence, claimant not only relied upon prosecution records but also treatment records. Ex.P9 - discharge summary issued by SDM Hospital, Dharwad, indicated date of admission as 01.09.2011 and date of discharge as 14.09.2011 and in history of injuries, it was stated, RTA 3 days ago as fall from tractor. It was submitted, said date of admission and discharge would predate date of accident by two months, thereby establishing foisting of false claim against insurer. It was further submitted, vehicle in question was farm equipment and Ex.R3 - driving licence of driver of crane showed, he had driving licence to drive LMV, LMVGV and transport vehicle from 02.02.2002 valid till 02.12.2016 in case of transport vehicle and till 14.06.2031 in case of non-transport vehicle. This would establish that as on date of accident, driver did not have valid and effective driving licence to drive a crane and therefore, Tribunal was not justified in holding insurer liable to pay compensation.

6. On quantum, it was submitted that assessment of monthly income of deceased at ₹6,000/- was excessive and as such compensation awarded called for reduction. On said ground sought for allowing of appeal.

7. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment, award and record.

8. There is no representation for respondents.

9. From above and since insurer is in appeal challenging finding of Tribunal on negligence/liability, points that arise for consideration are:

          1. Whether Tribunal was justified in holding insurer liable to pay compensation? And

          2. Whether assessment of compensation calls for modification?

10. Point no.1: Challenge is two-fold. Firstly, that Ex.P9 sought to be relied upon by claimant indicated that claimant had met with an accident two months prior to accident in question, but failed to disclose same in his pleadings, thereby indicating that claim petition was filed with intention to fix insured vehicle for purposes of claim. Second ground urged is about driver of crane not possessing valid and effective driving licence at time of accident. Though perusal of Ex.P9 would indicate that date of admission and date of discharge in month of September 2011 as being more than two months prior to accident in question, remaining part of Ex.P9 does contain admission of claimant on account of injuries sustained in RTA that occurred on 24.12.2011. Apart from above, there is absolutely no cross- examination of claimant on this aspect especially when it was possible for claimant to have sustained another accident earlier and took treatment for same..

11. Second ground is about driving licence. Perusal of Ex.R3 would indicate, driver having driving licence not only in respect of Light Motor Vehicle, but also Light Motor Vehicle with Goods Vehicle and Transport vehicle endorsements. Accident occurred, while crane was moving on road, in which case it would require to be treated as regular motor vehicle. Since driver possesses driving licence not only in respect of Light Motor Vehicle Goods Vehicle, but also transport vehicle, in absence of establishing that driver of a crane would require separate and specific licence, contention of insurer cannot be accepted. For aforesaid reason, Point no.1 is answered in 'affirmative'.

12. Point no.2: On quantum, challenge is confined to Tribunal taking higher monthly income. While passing impugned award, it is seen that Tribunal considered notional income for year 2011 as ₹6,000/-. Even as per notional income chart adopted for settlement of cases before Karnataka State Legal Services Authority (KSLSA), notional income for year 2011 is ₹6,000/-. Thus, there would be sufficient justification for Tribunal to have assessed monthly income at ₹6,000/-. Therefore, Point no.2 is answered in 'negative'. Consequently, following:

ORDER

          i. Appeal is dismissed.

          ii. Amount in deposit, if any is ordered to be transmitted to Tribunal for payment.

          iii. Balance to be deposited within six weeks.

          iv. On deposit, Tribunal is directed to release compensation amount in favour of claimant.