Karnataka High Court
United Inida Insurance Co Ltd vs N Prakash S/O M Narasimhalu on 25 May, 2011
Equivalent citations: 2011 AAC 2916 (KAR), 2011 (3) AIR KANT HCR 633
Author: Subhash B.Adi
Bench: Subhash B.Adi
EN THE HIGH COURT 0}' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 25% DAY OF MAY 2031
BEFORE: H .
THE: HONBLE ';ViR.JUST£CE SUBHASH B.$SE>.£--A.' "
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.99;-§"%<.§.f_9_§i;z V' T
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST farti S62 5 200: " .1: " * ~ V'
IN M.F.A.NQ.9924/2007
BETWEEN:
United India Insurance Co. Lid; '' «:
D.O.N0. 10, #21, St. PairiCkV'VS_'ChVu:*¢h;
Bldg, Behind F.M.C_a:"iyappa
Museum Raad, B.;1n§?3.l0re 55.60% 025 A V
New representsd by .Regi.Cn.9d....ManaIger .
United India InSu1jz1:";<:<3 C0' 1'td'j.-,. :
Regional Office,"Sh€1nE;a.:a:1éiy3.n3;
Building, $30.25;.M.G.R§3::d,"»._" _
Bangaloreg 5.50 o'c:»";=..~-._» V ._ * - .. APPELLANT
{By SrLA.N.K1?i.LSh~naSWafny,.--
AND: "
5.1 « , /0 M.NaraSi1nhaiu
}xg¢:"n:ajQ'r_ R,/a Chetan Nilaya
. "-.Ff3~11bb8'd'i1" V i'£1age§ Subrarnanyapura PGSL
' . B'angaI0:té; -64
é NS;taSimha Murthy
_ S/0 Sxibrarnani, Major
~ V#E;CI, QUE A CFGSS, Baiaji Nagar
" -Siamadug BSK H1 Siiage
Bangaiare 559 985. .. RESPQRBENTS
33:'?§\:£.B,€§"2E§%"id:'EiC§"i8z:)da, fidsy, far 3%};
R2 Ssrvfid}
s
ix)
:
IN M.F.A.N0.825i2/2007
BETWEEN:
i\i.P1*akash,
S/<3 M.Nai*a$irnha}u
Aged about 30 years
R/of Chetan Nilaya
Bubbaia Viiiage, _
Subramanyapura Post,
Bangalore «£360 084. 3C
(By Sri. M.B.Chanciraeho0da, Adfi) _V
AND:
1.The United India Insu.r2inee._Ccs'_.'i.i}:i--_;*. _ Represented by its Manager 7' Divisional office No. 10; _ A #21, St. Pai1rie1:'s_Chfig1rch .
Behind F.M_.Ca;%?1yapp;.-:1 Eiiiiildilrig. '' V ' Banga10reu5i3.O;'O25' ' ._ V'
2. Nar;1simhéi'M_.u:iiiy S/0 Subfairiiaiiigf-~ M Age: 45 years ' V' "
#50, 9'"*.»'§i Cross, Bziiajiflagar iiiamadu, "BSK viii Stage eaingaiare 560.085. _ .. RESPONDEZNTS Sini.1~iai'ini--Shivanand, Adv. fer Rig No1;it:+;:&3 ..ijie1dAvsii:fficieni) in ,:§;i.F.A_.i$i§?..V.9§24/200? is filed under Seeiion i';73{i} of i\/IV Eaei ag2£insi--.Vth'e"judgineni and award dated 1312,2006 passed .. EVIVC N*Q,3:8i5f2OG5 on iihe file of The VII Add}. Judge, Ceuri; (':25 Sin__aii "Causes, Membei: MACT3, Metropolitan area .__Ba,ngai0'i'je, {SCCii.Noi3}, awarding a eornpensatien of Rs. V _i.._3L:"%,C'¥':}€i/~ with interest 5% PA; from iiie date ef petiiien iii} eiepzieii.
M.F.A.N0.6252/2007' is filed under Seet§:3h'v~l.:?'3b("l~}: A _ Act; against the judgment and award <:la'teCl'*l9. l'2.2_.O()€3 passed it:
MVC No.3815/2005 on the file 0l'The}VIl A(:lcl1.'Jz:clge--. llvilemberl l\/lACT--3, Ceurt of Small Causes, Bangal.Qre., {SCCH_._No,.v3}, "
__eon1p"ens'atio:nV » ' ' ah seeglaiing " , allowing the claim petition fez"
enhancement of Compensation.
These Appeals c0mi:r_1_g cm Ceurt delivered the f0ll0Wlvn'__g':.__ _ _ ,2 _ a. far. lxf'111al" elisphsal. Clay, the Both these appeals afirewdiifeCie;;l'zagai:1s3é ::the judgment and award in M.Vlllciateri-- VlShl'2ilQ'2OO6 on the file of M.A.C.T., Bangalore,
2. M.F.A.No;.99;Z4/;ZOQ?*v.i'::.bythe insurer questioning the liability pay':leslhlpelislatihhLyvhefeas, M.F.A.l\lo.6252/2007 is by the Claimant seel:jh§:ehlh'ahCement of Compensation;
3. The h1*i.ef'faCts_lea_ding't0 these appeals are as under:
l8,E"1.2005 at ah_Qh.'i 3 13,111. the claimant while moving on meter' e§_ele.jbeAa1*ir__1g No.KAm05/R-4931 near Yaclavanahalli gate Anekal taluk, Bangalere, a tempe bearing V 530.KA§i}5/£éC5'2'":eame in a high speed in a rash and negligent H H K 4.4inam1e;f anil lelashed againsi the motor cycle ef the claimant, as a :es'u,_li"0f"whieh, he fell down and sustaineel grievous injury. ii. Befare the '?r:ibu:1all the claimant get himself examinefi as Plzfifi aha alss examiheé Deatiler as PW~2 and pmézzeeé
7. Sri.A.N.Krishnaswarny, learned Counsel for the insurer submitted that, Section 3 0f the Motor Vehicles Act mandates that, in case of licence to drive 2: transport yeliieierfg-. éin endorsement on the driving licence is necessary tea _perin.it" such V' driver te drive the transport vehiele,:"9;s "di:heiiwise:Alei%en driver possesses the licence to drive light meter veliriele, he' authorised to drive a transport this .regsr't<1i"iie relied"
on two judgments of the Apex Cdurt :re--p{§rt_ed 1411 in the matter of ORIENTAL'tfiIl\TStJR3if,J(5E:,V:CC).LTD, _us- ANGAD KOL AND OTHERS a..m:1 annther:'jud.grne1it'.ref;rerted in 2005 ACJ 1336 in the .z§:4ii*rOiViif;. :.:tNt'1~§U'PysNCE CQLTD. ~vs~ KUSUM RAI Arie) the Apex Court in identical case of licence ts drive light Vendorsernent on the licence to drive a _transf3drt' Vehicle, the insurer is entitled to take a 'V defence uinderééeetion 149 to contest the claim against it 'a,nd~.1i' fiieenee to drive transport Vehicle requires an end0rs'en1e.nt'l--ti3 effect under Section 3 0f the l\/l.V,Aet, the elairnant net entitled ts recover the eorripensation freni the ., arnounts to violation of the terms of the policy and .'_:f_ie§stien (if the provisiens ef the Meter 'xfehieies Act, Hence Vihere is no ststntery liability en the part ef the insurer.' Further, %3*'''5 A r:r:"""
QIICG it is heid that the insurer siatuteiily is not liable, mereiy because the driver of the effenciirig vehieie pessesses the licence? ihe iiabiiiiy earinet be fEiS'§€¥},f3§ 0:: {<3 iihe insurer.
8. G1: the other hand, ieamed Couiisei V. claimant siibmitied that, the meter vehmie inveiis?e'ii-.ii: fi'1i.S'.C£iS€' ' being a tempo and ii: is a light m0t0i',Ve1:;ie1--e, iei' "high: motor vehicle" as defineci'i,1i1.:;1er Seeiien 2'v:ei§:.>ic1SeVVV[$i1)VAo£ the ix/i.V.Ac:t inciudes tracior and --iiiereitirifisificoiiipeteni to drive tractor, he is aiso temfioi further is also Competent to drive vehicle. The tractor, light cetiiierwise are all light motor of the light motor Vehicie is suffieieiit 'vie " hiiieior yehicie. The insurer cannot eecgpey 'merely because there is no eiieiersemeiii, ii: earinet be éibseiveci from its iiabiiity. He 9.130 i'<:iied' fhe jtidgmeiiiiiiei the Apex Court reperted in 52084} 3 s<j:<':_2:9:2:iii.,:':ii'éeVii:iiitte: cf NATIQNAL INSURANCE CQLTD. -vs~ sivgieéw Again GTHERS and further relied on another Vi"-U._'ilf3Y€p£}F§C"i{liAt~ jueigmeni of the Apex Gear': in Civil Agpeal 20:11 dated Zed March 2011 in the Inatier sf K{JSUi§«i AND i:3'i"f£ERS -zs3-- SAZFBEQ AR? GTEEERS aiié sufimiiied , ;'iii3.?;, ever: aesiiiiiizig 313%, such 8.1:: eriéerseiiieni is necessary, that itself is not 3. ground to deny the compensation, as_..fer as Claimant is concerned, who is a third party, the irisiure«r"is.fii_2;h_ie to pay the same and recover; He further submitted * capacity ta drive the light meter transpert \!ehieie'.etiie'iwise it cannot be questioned as the driver had the eiieeiiiee motor Vehicle. He submitted tiie:t,.._V the it awerd does not can fer interference as of the insurer is concerned. He Tribunal while assessing the eompeerisaticirii 'appreciated the evidence of the into consideration the nature of by the Tribunal is on the 1Q&5Ver'si.eie.
9. Inithe »1igI'ii.V'(if' the-Jsiibmissions made by both the Counsel; the poinissthiat arise for consideration are:
{2} W.-'*ieéhe«r the licence to drive light meter vehieie ' , t»s;iti~7:ci'.;::t"endorsement of authorisation to drive i'::ransp:)jr*tvV.v~*light motor vehicle as contemplated una--e§'--- Section 3 cf the Motor ifehicies Act would Ciiséflféile the clczirnant to recover the campensation ffcm the insurer?
'A :{:_Z} Iri" case such an encéarsememf is necessary, whether the insurer as {table to pay and recaver? .«/fly 'M-
10. To appreciate the contentions, it is proper to refer to Section 2 clause (21) the definition of "light motor vehiciefi which means:
"ca transport vehzcie or omnibus the gross__;"i}e?u:c£-e_ " ' weight of eiiher of which or «:1 meter car or :.rfcictor_o:"
roadwololer the unlczden weight of any of ages not exceed 7,500 lciZcgn:zrn,s", 7 V v. "
1 1. In this case, it is not in: dispufehfifzat, the--'V-Variizer the o offending vehicle did possess the'V"e'1icence t§._d§:\;.g light motor vehicle. However, it has'~~..corI:e""'gf1e.:'iphg.fividefiée "that, the offending Vehicle was transpoct 3 of M.V.Act reads as under:
"3::.' IV'e--cé3;'s£_ty "ji3r""--cliiv'i:r_1g.-- Vlicencex (I) No person shall"-rifiue Ca rnoAto'r---u&e'hicle in any public place unZes's'"he_ fijolds':fi;:m e;,§fiective"t:ii"iz5ing licence issued to himfiauth.onIsing._him ifo_dr;_ve. the vehicle; and no person shalljso drive efarzvspcrt' vehicie other than a motor cab of .._motor c_yc'Ee' for his own use or rented under any scheme, made under sub-section {2} of secfion 75 auniess chis driving Eicence speczficaiiy eniitles him sofa. v<:l.o..
_ V {'2}"Tfie._conditions subject to which subsection ._ V {J} $hi?£l_l izoin~.q§3pZy to a person receiving instructions in '-- ciriving znotfor vehicée shali be such as may be A p4:"esc:':?:7ecZ.« by {he Central Govemznenf'
4. ' '4SVectio;:~._ contemplates that no person shed} drive motor Vehicle p'";.:Vio:fic: unlees he holds effective driving iicence and :10 cerson .._4s?E1e;EEerive ctrensgoré vehicie ether {hen mote: cab or maze: cycée ow?
wt?"
hired fer his own use er rented under any scheme made under sub~see1:ie:: {2} of Seeiien ?5 uniess his drivi13ef.VVi§,_eer1_ee sneeifieelig? entitles him se 1:0 :19. ("underlining supplieeij " ~ A'
12. Reading of previsiens ef Seetien .3 eenie':::;p1v.a5_LeeL' me person is authorised te drive rnoter Ve1*:ie_1e--««xari%eh_e"w:_ £ieef:ee';. Seeendly, if a person is holding fiee1_f1ee te eI'::§x:fe,~v ten transpert vehicle, such licence r1:.:;:L's2:» bearer: 'eIi{fIef'sefiient as V' 'transport vehicle'. Seetien' 3 dist.ifi"gei_$he'e..the Iieeiieeio drive a vehicle and licence 1:0 drive ;_.é1' i;1*a€1sspc:_i~t.. Vehicle. In case of transport vehicle, éiiziwe reqilires ;aL1:he--risa1ti:;;i'V as contemplated under Sectionfi' .'§"f..__t:1'}e.. Ezet. j
13., It "is" ':1ji s§'_1ite fihis case that, such an endorsement is no'; on the licence 0f driving the effendingv vehLi4'(:~1eV_ 11nV:Vrf.sepafaifiely authorised the driver of the 'V Voffenciifig Tgehiele to 'e{r'ive'transp0ri: Vehicle. It is 3150 necessary t;r>_ reefitie1a.»1thé3:_Vthe duration of licence in ease of transpert VehieIe"is threejyears and in case ef other licence, it is 20 years. _ 'T:fansp'e1tt'<{ehic1e is defined under Seetien 2&7} of 1'vE.V.,A<:£, * V. A which 'means *3 pefeiie service vehieie, ea. geefie earziage, an eeueeéienai irzstitutien bus or private service vehieie". 5"'
14. in case of transport vehicle, the risk of third party goods or life is involved. Periodic check: might be necessary to renew the licence. It is in this context the validity of 1iVceo4c'e_Vor period of licence is fixed at 3 years and in other eases;-.>it--..i:s".20* years. Reading of this provision and the duration. .the.:1ice13e'e ' makes it clear' that, every licericee who driye is not automatically aiithorisecito drives the trarispeoft' ve'hi'<:~1e"= unless he is so authorised in iaw. V
15. Hence, as far iN:':~3.'h1"'V/(.i%:':.£i{3?L'1C€I'1'1€(i, merely because there is a 1i-oeiiee it does not authorise a vehicle. The transport yjghieie as contemplated under Section the Act; « -
16. Asia}? as p.ay'.ahd'.~'t'recoVery is concerned, often this q_L1esti_oi'i heeri "r'ais_eci., in KUSUM LATHA's case {supra}; the it has held that, licence to drive vehicle is necessary, Vha'_s..ai'sVo held that an endorsement to drive transport ivehieieétis necessary in case of transport vehicle, However, as far pégtnetit of compensation is concerned, it has held that. in «ifieévt "'o'i': SWARAN SINGH's case, the insurer can pay the »_ €'3iZii'YiK§€f1$a,'LiGE'1 and i"€CCxV€i' from the ewneix, who is §?€iI"I12tfi1}' liable. It is in this regard, it is necessary to refer to sornellthe judgntenis. __ §_ W .._' = _ 17' In KUSUM RATS ease {suprall the Apex Cegirt, has" * that. driver having licence to drive a 33:-te'p and ';:lrivirtg commercial V€l'1iC:l€ without such Company Inay recover the amelu_nt~V..V_pai<l" fr0ntlltvlj1_e"':._;(>"wr;er by " V initiating proceedings before the Ae..x:ele'u.tiI}g eonrt;.._ATl)l5ugh the Apex Court upheld the eontenti,0nLs that, holding licence to drive light'm0tor.Vel:ie'IeVdees factor authorise such driver to trertsijertlliiehicle. However, it held that in such eetin pay it and recover. In the matter or t§ij5§t,izlé*«.LArHA Civil Appeal N:::.2269/20]} {supra}, theepex Court 3.53 held as under:
In of! dispute about licence, the Triburaai has" and, in our view rightly, that the ' 'iriSurt2rteee.eompazt'5;}'has to pay and then may recover it . frfom theowrter of the vehicle. This Court is aflirrning " _:h'afvv;i!reetien'_::n view of the principles laid down by a _ 'three#Jttdge:;Bench cf thie Court in the ease of National 'I__nsurQnee-v_ Company Limited :2. Swaran Singh and ()ih€i"S reported in {200/4} 3 SOC 29?. "
'lite ebservstigion ef the Apex Court in thie judgment makes it ._<:'ie;:».:j even in ease of the dispute as regard to the licence, llgprineiplee laiel elewn in SlA§%RéN SINGH's eetse are ur'ee;fi'irr:1ed ané in View nf Qrineipiee laid §{)W'fi in SEEARAN -12- SINGH's case. the insurance company is directed to pay and I'€CGV€f.
18. In this case, having heid that the effending vehicle had only licence to drive Without any authorisation to drive light the primary liability is on the ovxfner.
the insurance policy was in force date'~Qf the it Claimant being a third pavrtyi andr"tiiere adpoiieyfl Covering the risk of third party, he denied of the compensation. the owner and the driver of the remedy' of the insurer..it.$r.t,d «t a Case of the insurer that the evtmer' tr:-errnitteri the driver to drive the vehicle without ii"e,eriee,»-- is the ease of the insurer that the licence of the 'driver did not bear the endorsement to drive the traneptirti ifehieie. admitted that the transpert Vehicle vtfaeVa,iigi:t"ni;0'£;ei2xéehieie and the driver was having the licence 2 to drivet tight 'rntiter vehicle without endorsement of tranepdrt
-. j .- 'Vehicle.
Hence the insurer can pay the compensation te the ..'_4eiai:inant and reeever the earne irern the ewner ef the vehieiei Accordingly, I pass the foliowing order: M.F'.A.N0.9924/2007 fiied by the ineurer is aiiowed in part. The awarei of the Tribunal holding that the instifeij is liable to indeinnify the compensation on the ground- driver of the offending vehicle had the thirst modified and held that the driver of effend_inig only licence to drive light motor Veihieie andbhfiittj "d€)eSi h»:iit'r.L authorise him to drive transport ae Slieii, ie net liable to indemnify the" ineih*er'te pay the compensation to the elaimeinieangi frern the owner in the same insofar V. the claimant seeking enhaneenzsehtef the findings of the Tribunal ate hzised'an}§@§t§eae_:tiéippreciation of the evidence. The Tiibunal -has atfiJardedv"1'eézeehab1e eempensation. I do net find there zitiy "error aeéwfer as quantum ef compensation is c'ex;c*e;§ied;j«._;t t B/i.F.A.N0.6252 X209? is dismissed.
The :;in1;eunt in deposit be traiisferred to the Tribunal. gig;
EEESGE * Egisiixrigx