Karnataka High Court
Ramakka D/O Rayappa Korvi vs Manjunath S/O Ganapati Veleef on 6 July, 2020
Bench: S G Pandit, V.Srishananda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
Dated this the 6TH day of July 2020
Present
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
and
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
M.F.A. No.101536 of 2014 (MV)
C/W M.F.A. No.101537 of 2014 (MV)
In MFA No.101536/2014
Between:
Malati, W/o Vishnu Nayak
Age: 48 Years,
Occ: SDA Forest Department
R/O Near Naregal Petrol Pump
Dandeli, Dist:Uttara Kannada. ...Appellant
(By Sri. Shivaraj Balloli, Advocate)
And
1. Sri. Manjunath
S/O Ganapati Veleef
Age:58 Years,
Occ: Owner Of The Goods Tempo
Bearing No.KA-30/2618,
R/O Kundal, Kumbarwada,
Tq:Karwar, Dist:Uttara Kannada.
2
2. National Insurance Company Ltd.,
Branch Office No.1628
Kaikini Road, Karwar.
3. Sri. Totayya S/O Panchaksharayya
Halakarnimath, Age: 38 Years,
Occ: KSRTC Bus Driver,
Kundapur KSRTC Depot,
Kundapur.
4. The Divisional Controller
KSRTC Mangalore Division
Mangalore. ...Respondents
(By Sri. C.V. Angadi, Advocate for R2
Sri. F.S. Dabali, Advocate for R4)
(R1 & R3-Served)
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of the
Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and award
dated 4.3.2014, passed in M.V.C. No.62/2012 on the
file of the Addl. MACT, Yellapur sitting at Haliyal, partly
allowing the clam petition for compensation and seeking
enhancement of compensation.
In MFA No.101537/2014
Between
Ramakka
D/O Rayappa Korvi
Age: 38 Years,
Occ: Service
R/O Near B.N. Prabhu House,
Old Dandeli, Dandeli-581325,
Dist:Uttar Kannada. ...Appellant
(By Sri.Shivaraj Balloli, Advocate)
3
And
1. Sri. Manjunath
S/O Ganapati Veleef
Age: 59 Years,
Occ: Owner Of Goods Tempo
Bearing No.KA-30-2618
R/O Kundal Kumbarwada,
Tq:Karwar, Dist:Uttar Kannada.
2. National Insurance Company Ltd.,
Branch Office No.1628
Kaikini Road, Karwar,
(Policy No.02504/31/10/670009261
Valid From 17/12/2010 To 16/12/2011)
3. Sri. Totayya
S/O Panchaksharayya Halakarnimath,
Age: 39 Years, Occ: KSRTC Bus Driver
Kundapur KSRTC Depot, Kundapur.
4. The Divisional Controller
KSRTC Mangalore Division
Mangalore. ...Respondents
(By Sri. C.V. Angadi, Advocate for R2
Sri. F.S. Dabali, Advocate for R4)
(R1 & R3-Served)
This MFA is filed under section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, against the judgment and award dated
4.3.2014, passed in M.V.C. No.59/2012 on the file of
the Addl. MACT, Yellapur sitting at Haliyal, partly
allowing the clam petition for compensation and seeking
enhancement of compensation.
4
These MFAs coming on for Final Hearing through
Video Conference due to Covid-19, this day,
S.G.Pandit, J delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Both the appeals - M.F.A. No.101536/2014 and M.F.A. No.101537/2014 are by the claimants aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 04.03.2014 passed in M.V.C. No.62/2012 and M.V.C. No.59/2012 on the file of the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yellapur sitting at Haliyal (for short, 'the Tribunal), under which liability has been saddled on respondent No.1 - owner-cum-driver of the goods tempo on the ground that the driver had no valid and effective driving licence to drive the goods tempo as on the date of the accident.
2. The aforesaid claim petitions and the present appeals arise out of the same accident which took place on 30.08.2011 between the goods tempo bearing No.KA- 5 30/2618 and KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-19/F-2772 and hence, they are taken up together for disposal.
3. The claim petitions were filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for the accidental injuries sustained in the aforesaid accident involving the above mentioned two vehicles. On the basis of the material made available by the claimants, a sum of Rs.10,450/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum was awarded by the Tribunal in M.V.C. No.62/2012 which is the subject matter of appeal in M.F.A. No.101536/2014, whereas in M.V.C. No.59/2012, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum which is the subject matter of appeal in M.F.A. No.101537/2014. In both the claim petitions, liability to pay the compensation was saddled on respondent No.1
- owner-cum-driver of the goods tempo. Aggrieved by the saddling of liability on respondent No.1-owner-cum- 6 driver of the goods tempo, claimant in both the claim petitions are before this Court in these two appeals.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and the learned counsel for respondent No.2-insurer of the goods tempo. Perused the trial Court records.
5. The occurrence of the accident and the accidental injuries sustained by the appellants/claimants in the above appeals are not in dispute. The one and only contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants is that the Tribunal committed an error in saddling the liability on respondent No.1-owner-cum-driver of the goods tempo instead of saddling the liability on respondent No.2- insurer of the goods tempo. Learned counsel invites the attention of this Court to Ex.R.3 (in both the claim petitions), which is driving licence of respondent No.1- owner-cum-driver of the goods tempo, which indicates 7 that respondent No.1 was possessing licence to drive light motor vehicle (non-transport). Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others reported in AIR 2017 SC 3668, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant would submit that a driver who holds the licence to drive light motor vehicle (non- transport) could also drive light motor vehicle (transport) of the same category and as such, the liability is to be shifted from respondent No.1 to respondent No.2-insurer of the goods tempo. Thus, he prays for allowing the appeals.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2-insurer of the goods tempo would submit that respondent No.1-owner-cum-driver of the goods tempo had no valid and effective driving licence to drive transport vehicle as on the date of the accident, the driver-respondent No.1 possessed licence to drive light 8 motor vehicle (non-transport) only and as such, the Tribunal is justified in saddling the liability on respondent No.1-owner-cum-driver of the goods tempo. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the appeals.
7. On considering the rival contentions of the parties, the following point would arise for consideration, Whether the Tribunal is justified in saddling the liability on respondent No.1- owner-cum-driver of the goods tempo?
8. The answer to the above point would be in the negative for the following reasons:
The Tribunal saddled the liability on respondent No.1-owner-cum-driver of the goods tempo bearing No.KA-30/2618. It is not in dispute that respondent No.1- owner-cum-driver of the goods tempo had licence to drive light motor vehicle, which is established by placing Ex.R.3 on record. Ex.R3 is the driving licence of 9 respondent No.1 - owner-cum-driver of the goods tempo which would indicate that respondent No.1 possessed licence to drive the light motor vehicle (non-transport). The Hon'ble Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan's case (supra), considering the provisions of the Act and the earlier decisions, has laid down that a person holding licence to drive light motor vehicle (non-transport) could also drive light motor vehicle (transport) of the same category. In the case on hand also, respondent No.1 had licence to drive light motor vehicle (non-transport), whereas, at the time of the accident, he was driving the light motor vehicle (transport) of the same category, which he could drive as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Mukund Dewangan's case referred to above. As such, we are of the view that respondent No.2, the insurer of the goods tempo, is liable to indemnify respondent No.1-owner-cum-driver of the goods tempo.
As such, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally held liable to pay the compensation. 10 Consequently, respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
9. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 04.03.2014 passed in M.V.C. No.62/2012 and M.V.C. No.59/2012 passed by the Tribunal is hereby modified to the extent of fixing liability on respondent No.2-insurer of the goods tempo. Respondent No.2-insurer of the goods tempo is directed to deposit the compensation amount awarded in the aforesaid two claim petitions within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Kms