Karnataka High Court
The Brach Manager United India ... vs Smt.Ratnawwa W/O. Channappa & Ors ... on 20 February, 2019
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
MFA NO.201247 OF 2016 (MV)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
SANGAM BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR
S.S.FRONT ROAD
VIJAYAPURA-586101
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. RATNAWWA W/O CHANNAPPA
DORPALE, AGE: 43 YEARS
OCC: HOUSEHOLD
R/O LIMBI CHINCHOLI
TQ. SOLAPUR, NOW AT HIRE-RUGI
TQ. INDI-586209
2. SHIVALEELA D/O CHANNAPPA DARAPALE
AGE: 14 YEARS (MINOR), OCC: STUDENT
SINCE MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL
MOTHER, I.E., RESPONDENT NO.1
SMT. RATNAWWA
R/O LIMBI CHINCHOLI, TQ. SOLAPUR
NOW AT HIRE-RUGI, TQ. INDI-586209
2
3. MALLINATH S/O BHIMASHANKAR DHULANGE
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL.
R/O SHIRVAL, TQ: SOUTH SOLAPUR
DIST. SOLAPUR-591507
(OWNER OF TRACTOR & TRAILER BEARING
NO.AP-23/N.5900 CHESSIS
NO.NGCU802006504668-C1)
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI CHAITANYA KUMAR C.M., ADV. FOR R1 & R2;
APPEAL AGAINST R3 DISMISSED V.O. DTD. 20.02.2019)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT, PRAYING SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 30.10.2015 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND MACT NO.XI, INDI IN MVC NO.02/2013 BY ALLOWING
THE APPEAL.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appellant-Insurance company is before this Court challenging the liability fastened on it under the judgment and award dated 30.10.2015 in MVC No.02/2013 passed by the Senior Civil Judge & MACT-XI, Indi.
2. The claimants approached the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming 3 compensation for the death of husband of the petitioner No.1 namely, Channappa Darapale. The claimants are the wife and daughter of the deceased Channappa Darpale. It is claimed that on 15.05.2011, the deceased was sleeping infront of TT Unit, one Mahindra Tractor and Trailer bearing Registration No.AP.23/N.5900 was abruptly driven in a negligent manner and caused the accident. Due to which, the deceased suffered grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. It is stated that at the time of accident the deceased was aged 40 years and was getting income of Rs.5,000/- per month.
3. After service of notice, the insurance company appeared before the Tribunal and filed its objection denying the petition averments and also contended that the driver of the Tractor and Trailer was not possessing valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident.
4
4. The Tribunal based on the evidence on record both oral and documentary, awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,03,000/- with 9% interest to the claimants and rejected the contention of the insurance company that the driver of the Tractor and Trailer had not possessed valid and effective driving licence and fastened the liability on the insurance company.
5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award, the insurance company is before this Court in this appeal.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that as on the date of the accident the driver of the Tractor and Trailer had not possessed valid and effective driving licence. As such, the Tribunal committed an error in fastening the liability on it holding that the driving licence, which is marked Ex.R.3, which indicates that the driver of the offending vehicle had LMV licence. He further contended that the 5 Tribunal has committed an error in granting 9% interest on the compensation, whereas he submits that the claimants would be entitled for interest at the rate of 6% and to that effect he has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Vijay Ishwar Jadhav Vs. Ulrich Belchior Fernandes reported in (2018 M.A.C. 472 (Kant) ].
7. The learned counsel for the respondents- claimants submits that the Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability on the appellant-insurance company, which needs no interference by this Court.
8. The contentions urged by the learned counsel for the insurance company is that the driver of the Tractor and Trailer had no licence as on the date of the accident. But, Ex.R.3, driving licence indicates that the driver of the Tractor and Trailer had only LMV (non- transport) licence. That means the driver had driving licence to drive non-transport vehicle. The Hon'ble 6 Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, reported in AIR 2017 Supreme Court 3668 held as follows:
"46. Section 10 of the Act requires a driver to hold a licence with respect to the class of vehicles and not with respect to the type of vehicles. In one class of vehicles, there may be different kinds of vehicles. If they fall in the same class of vehicles, no separate endorsement is required to drive such vehicles. As light motor vehicle includes transport vehicle also, a holder of light motor vehicle licence can drive all the vehicles of the class including transport vehicles. It was pre-amended position as well the post-amended position of Form 4 as amended on 28.3.2001. Any other interpretation would be repugnant to the definition of "light motor vehicle" in section 2(21) and the provisions of section 10(2)(d), Rule 8 of the Rules of 1989, other provisions and also the forms which are in tune with the provisions. Even otherwise the forms never intended to exclude transport vehicles from the category of 'light motor vehicles' and for light motor vehicle, the validity period of such licence hold good and apply for the transport vehicle of such class also and the expression in Section 10(2)(e) of the Act 'Transport Vehicle' would include medium goods vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, heavy passenger motor vehicle which earlier found place in section 10(2)(e) to (h) and our conclusion is fortified by the syllabus and rules which we have discussed. Thus we answer the questions which are referred to us thus:
(i) 'Light motor vehicle' as defined in section 2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as 7 per the weight prescribed in section 2(21) read with section 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act No.54/1994.
(ii) A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, 'unladen weight' of which does not exceed 7500 kg. and holder of a driving licence to drive class of "light motor vehicle" as provided in section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the "unladen weight" of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form.
(iii) The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act No.54/1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 while substituting clauses (e) to (h) of section 10(2) which contained "medium goods vehicle" in section 10(2)(e), medium passenger motor vehicle in section 10(2)(f), heavy goods vehicle in section 10(2)(g) and "heavy passenger motor vehicle" in 8 section 10(2)(h) with expression 'transport vehicle' as substituted in section 10(2)(e) related only to the aforesaid substituted classes only. It does not exclude transport vehicle, from the purview of section 10(2)(d) and section 2(41) of the Act i.e. light motor vehicle.
(iv) The effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of "transport vehicle" is related only to the categories which were substituted in the year 1994 and the procedure to obtain driving licence for transport vehicle of class of "light motor vehicle"
continues to be the same as it was and has not been changed and there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect."
9. In view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited supra, the contention of the appellant-insurance company that the driver of the Tractor and Trailer had no licence to drive the LMV non- transport vehicle would not remain for consideration. 9
10. In so far as awarding interest of 9% on the compensation by the Tribunal is concerned, the decision of this Court in Vijay Ishwar Jadhav (supra), wherein at para Nos.4 and 5 held as under:
"14. I have carefully considered the rival contentions of the counsel for the Insurance company for the claimants. It is true that the provisions of Civil Procedure Code are not proprio vigor applicable to the procedure and powers of claims Tribunal, except to the extent mentioned in Sub-Section 2 of Section 169 of the Act. Sub-section 1 & 2 of Section 169 read as under:
"169. Procedure and powers of Claims Tribunals-
(1) In holding any inquiry under section 168, the Claims Tribunal may, subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit.
(2) The Claims Tribunal shall have all the powers of a Civil Court for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and of compelling the discovery and production of documents and material objections and for such other purposes as may be prescribed; and the Claims Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of section 195 10 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)"
15. However, the provisions of Section 149(1) of the Act to the extent they speak of interest payable on the compensation amount is in the nature of an exception to the general law enacted in 169 of the M.V. Act and therefore, the provisions of Section 34 of CPC to that extent become invocable on the general principles of construction of statues namely the special law overrides the general law. Therefore, in the absence of any other law relating to interest on Judgments, the MACT has to follow the provisions of Section 34 of CPC, 1908. Thus, in the given circumstances of this case, interest at the rate of more than 6% could not have been awarded."
11. Thus, it is made clear that the claimants would be entitled for 6% interest on the compensation amount as against 9% awarded by the Tribunal. Only to the extent of reducing the interest, the appeal is allowed in part. In so far as the appellant-insurance company questioning the liability fastened on it is rejected.
11
In view of disposal of main appeal, I.A.No.2/2016 does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the same is disposed of.
The amount in deposit shall be transferred to the concerned Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE BL