- (1.) RESPONDENT No.2 in MVC No. 1837/2007 and MVC No. 183/2008 on the file of MACT, DK Mangalore is the appellant.
(2.) FACTS necessary for consideration of the present appeals are as under: It is the case of the claimants that on 10.9.2007 at 6.30 p.m., that they were moving in a motor cycle bearing Regn. No.KA-19/ V-2773, then the driver of the TVS Victor motor bike bearing Regn. No.KA-19/S 6692 has driven his vehicle rashly, negligently and caused accident. So, claim petitions are filed seeking compensation in regard to the pain, suffering and agony suffered by them. Respondent No.2 has filed objections. In the objections it is contended that the claim of the claimants is exaggerated. Petitioners are called upon to prove the manner in which the accident is said to have occurred. No additional premium is taken to cover the risk of the pillion rider. Plead for dismissal of the claim applications. Pws. 1 and 2 are examined. Exhibits P-1 to P-46 are marked. Policy of both the vehicles are marked as Exs.R-1 and R-2. Driving licence extract is marked as Ex.R-3. The learned member of the Tribunal has allowed the claim petitions, awarded compensation of Rs.50,600/- in MVC No. 1837/2007 and awarded a sum of Rs.59,200/- in MVC No. 183/2008.
(3.) LEARNED advocate for the appellant-Insurance Company contend that the driver of the vehicle did not hold valid driving licence. Unless the vehicle was driven by a person having valid driving licence, company cannot be asked to pay the compensation. So, pray for exonerating the company from paying the compensation. Ex.R-3 produced is the extract issued by RTO, Puttur DK. It is a driving licence of Rithesh Castelino S/o. Rama Castelino. It is issued for the period covering 29.12.2001 to 28.12.2002. The class of vehicle that is authorised for driving is A/R (NT) i.e., authorised to drive non-transport vehicle. To probabalise the stand of respondent No.2 that the two wheeler KA- 19/S-6692 come with any other category than the one authorised to drive is not spelt out. So, the learned member of the Tribunal has placed reliance on the ruling of this Court in 2005 (1) KCCR 5226, 2003 (4) KCCR 2602 and has held that the company has not proved that the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident did not had a valid driving licence. So directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation.;