Karnataka High Court
National Insurance Co Ltd vs Yalgurdappa S/O Hanamappa Mulangi on 9 August, 2010
Bench: K.Bhakthavatsala, B.V.Nagarathna
.. 3 _ 2. The facts leading to file this appeal in brief are as follows: The original respondent No.1 Yalgurdappa had fit-l"e----cl a
claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles--:AcutWin-«V M.V.C. 310.1064/2000 against respondent it present appellant seeking compensation--.of towards personal injuries sustainedi°'.by7.th'ilm infthe vehicle accident that occurred t)n_vg4l'2.,3,O5..2Q_0O.u case of the resporidenbclainiant 23.0'S;v2iOQ'i') after completion of his. work :.thle;lc1a1m_ant and other persons ar:ill"hAuto-rickshaw bearing registration, Alamatti to Sutagundar. The driver of the Anti';-_--ri'ekls~haW was driving the vehicle in a :.«~"1=aVsh negiigerit 'manner and as a result of which, he lost Con'-:ro'i~v.ov'ler'rtheAuto~rickshaw and it turned turtle near Desai 'Land The claimant sustained grievous Injuries- Z l The respondent No.1/owner-cum--driver of the l"'--A1..itol~ric}s:sha\x7 entered appearance and filed Written statement admitting that he was the ownervcurrvdriver of the vehicle and he had a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle. L km U4 _ ..-
-4- But he denied the averrnents of the claim petition that the accident occurred due to his rash and negligent the vehicle and that the injuries sustained by ~ are simple in nature.
4. The respondent No.2--lnsiir_ai1ce Corizpany written statement denying the --v._:a"»'ermheritsV claim petition. in para 8 of state.rr1ent..iof itheiiirisurance Company has taken the' the time of accident the driver' of the valid driving licence to drive if ' i The T1'iburia1"irariied issiiééiias foilowsi Whether petitione}j_ijVpro§fes«that the accident in question t.aiien due to rash and negligcenti driving i\uto--rickshaw bearing =TN¢.';KA;'2_9"/s"441my itsmdriver, i.e, respondent Ne..p'1?'f= Wheth.ier,'the' ip'e.titpioner proves that he sustained iiinj'uries~.ir1 the -said accident in question? .. 4Wheth.er " _ the petitioner is entitled to peotripensation? If so, to what extent and from who"n1?' "Whats: award or order?
_ 5 _
8. The contention of the insurance Company in this appeal is that the Tribunal has erred in saddiing the liability of the owner of the vehicle on the Insurance Company, though the respondent No.1 had no vaiid drivingpV.1.ice.n:c'e V. drive the AU.1:0--rickshaw which is a transport vehirgie. i the course of the arguments learned'.co.un_se_1"'ifor "the appe11ant--Insurar1ce Company per"
driving licence produced by the'~..ydriver:curn¥oWneir'" was i entitled to drive a Light Motor Veh'ic..ie'-{Non--transport) but he was driving, an Aut0--riCkshaw' uvhichis Ziarvititainsyport vehicle. It is submitted tha4t_:i'i3:_1 the "case _:iof:*--_non--transport vehicle, licence will of three years at a time but in the instantcase VEiCCif].C€'»V\i'K/:'E1S issued for a period of twenty years,"ztherei?ore:,i sacidling the liability on the owner or the 'Insurance, Company may be set aside. Learned counsel for the I.n'suira_nc..§év'Company relies on a decision rendered in it {Orieii".tal.«.1°ris-rrfraznce Co. Ltd., Vs. Angad K01 and others) " 'reported in 2009 (2; T.A.C. 4 (ac).
On the other hand, learned counsel for the
--djriespiondent No.1 / owner of the vehicie in question submits, , ppiiithat the respondent No.2 had. a valid and effective driving §
-3» the licence which is contrary to the definition under Section 2(21) of the Act.
13. in fact Section 10 of M.V. Act deals \?E7i'T,.l3,::fQ>I';1?§1v and contents of licences to drive and has categori__zeld" . classes of vehicles namely (i) Motor Cycle With'ovutf~ge'ar,'--,(ii}__ Motor Cycle with gear, (iii) Invalid ciarria-gel (iv):
Vehicle, (V) Transport Vehicle,.»'(vi_) Road_ll"rolle;. vehicle of a specified description. said is by virtue of amendment, effecltikfe fr.oni. virhich the transport vehicle asa class inserted and
a) Medium goo4jlsli",;V_ehicie, ibfx lVi€di€i11'r:.....vi°assenger Motor Vehicle, and (d) Heavy Passenger Motor vehicleéyver'e deieted, «Therefore, after the amendment the classification Motor Vehicle' is continued, and is 'V.i,nde}3endent.ofttransport vehicle. "Transport Vehicle" is a sulbsti-t.ution.lii"for aforementioned four classes of vehicles, it tvhichilare..__'d'elelted from the Section. It becomes clear that S it-l'ier.C is now-inclusion of light motor vehicle in the category of i"tranlpor.t'ivehicle. The amendment to the class of transport ':'ve.hi:cle pursuant to the amendment of Section 10 was ii"~<:arried out in the Motor Vehicles Ruies with effect from 9 e r 9 _ 28.03.2001, particularly Rule 14 read with form 4, whereby category of transport vehicle was inserted.
14. Taking note of the said amendment, the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Annappa Irappa alias Nesaria and others, reported ' ACJ 721 (SC) held that the aforesaid _a_me_n4dm'e.n't' to the 1989 Rules have all prospective. op'e1*atioin_ that effect from 28.03.2001 and therefiare the driver of the Vghicle had a tovvvfthe said date and when the accident' "on0A.Ai()'9_bi12.1999 it was held that the category of not be read into the s'aid._1icen'se-and a,<:_co.r__ding1y dismissed the appeal of the insurance C(>mpai1y.,_'1.'he"said decision is referred to in the case' ofAAngaa-iKo'l's Case, supra and distinguished. ,0 .iin_th.e instant case also the respondent No.2 had a iipehce to drive the Light Motor Vehicle and vthe 1i'een:_ce '.iivas issued prior to 28.03.2001 i.e. on At the relevant point of time, a person who was cornpctent to drive a Light Motor Vehicle was also Competent 'todrive a Auto--rickshaw if its gross vehicle weight was less A 0' = "than '?',500 kgs. The decision cited by the learned counsel for ?
_ 10 _ the appe11ant--Insurance Company reported in 2009 (2) 'I'.A.C. 4- [S.C.] (Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Angad K01 and others} supra, can be distinguished in thishhiway that the Respondent No.2's driving licence to Motor Vehicle is w.e.f. 02.12.1996 that adj pj,rjio}ii amendment to M..V. Rules. In the caiseHio'f'A_n'gad license was issued on 31.1O.2OO3¥.__ and Compa1'1y's appeal was allowed-.4'Therefore,ytheilaioresaid V decision cited by the learned. cp(.:-unse} for_ the iappeiiant is of no avail-
15- The the counsel for the appei.1an:t' New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. iliiiopshariireiiiiAiR«d}'§efr1ansha Fakir and Another __(Roshpc.*}rizben's ccitse): reported in 2008 ACJ 2161. In the said I?_<:aise.ais0_ithe_:1ic_ense was issued on 13.05.2004 for a period of driver of the offending vehicle had license V to drive a..__'thre'e 'wheeler which was not meant to be used to '--«.,i."i"..driveipas transport vehicle but he was driving a goods public carrier, an Auto~ri<:kshaw delivery van which commercial "vehicle (transport vehicle) and was not being " ~ "used for private purposes. A question arouse as to whether _ 11 -
the driver possessed a Valid driving licence and the insurance Company is liable. The Apex Court held it in the negative. But in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, directed the Insurance to satisfy the award and recover the amount from _ The facts in the said case are clearly distingu--i's11v-aibl-eiias itphevpiii licence was issued subsequent to "t-he C Court noticed that the provisi<é~ns_. of it'hei~i"'Act change by referring to the lifirztional Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs; Neiwtf-izgi and others, supra. In the issued on 02.12.1996;mi;e;a,..ii1:;f1o£3i*§V£o made to the Motor Vehicle Rulpes,«. ,~Forrn No.4. We are of the considered View that 'thie--._cia'se is covered by the decision in 'ifa';:;tiohpjé:i~I ;_!I§suraneé'vGe;' Ltd., Vs. Annappa Irappa alias iN.ese:1iirficz_:ViC):1i§hers. The decisions of the Apex Court in Angiadl"KoI'siif¢oié;e and Angad Kol's are not applicable to p the facts ioiftphe present case.
Hence, the Tribunal was justified in holding the i"<.___i'l'r'i1surance Company is liable to indemnify the respondent 4330.2/owner cum driver of Auto-flipkshaw. There is no merit »_..~».\..
-12"
in this appeai. In the result appeal faiis and the sanjie is hereby dismissed.
18. Registry is directed to transmit s'tat1itdry-- deposit, if in deposit, to the Tribunalf Sd; «1