- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court. Appeal was preferred before the High Court questioning correctness of the judgment and Award dated 18.01.2000 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shimoga (in short the 'Tribunal'). The owner of lorry bearing registration No.MYJ- 6666 had filed an appeal questioning correctness of the order passed by the Tribunal fixing the liability on him to pay compensation awarded. A cross-objection was filed by the complainants questioning the correctness of the compensation granted. The claim petition related to an accident which occurred on 20.11.1994 when a child aged seven years, who was the son of claimants, had lost his life. The claimants had filed the cross objections for enhancement of the compensation. Considering the materials on record, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.51,500/- as compensation. The High Court by the impugned order enhanced the sum to Rs.1,52,000/-. The appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'insurer') was directed to indemnify the award. Insurer's stand before the Tribunal and the High Court was that the driver driving the lorry was not authorized to drive the lorry because he was only licenced to drive a Light Motor Vehicle (in short the 'LMV'). When the accident took place, i.e. on 20.11.1994, the driver was authorized to drive LMV. Subsequently, on 11.10.1996 at the time of renewal of licence it was endorsed that he was authorized to drive Heavy Goods Vehicle (in short the 'HGV'). The High Court was of the view that the owner is not expected to know as to what type of licence the driver possessed. If the driver was authorized to drive one type of vehicle and was driving another type of vehicle, it cannot be said that there was wilfil breach on the part of insured. The insurer was required to prove that there was violation of terms and conditions of the policy and wilful breach on the part of insured as he was holding the licence to drive any type of vehicle for which he was not licenced. It was noted by the High Court that the owner of the vehicle may not be knowing as to what was the nature of the licence held by the driver. Accordingly, the quantum of compensation was enhanced and the appellant was held to be liable to pay the entire compensation.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer submitted that the quantum, as fixed, is extremely high and is without any basis. Further the insured was the father of the driver and it is hard to believe that he did not know as to what type of vehicle the driver was authorized to drive. Reliance is placed on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh (2004 (3) SCC 297) to contend that on the facts established and proved appellant has no liability.;