Karnataka High Court
M/S Royal Sundaram Alliance vs Chowdappa on 5 July, 2024
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:25508
MFA No. 10216 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 10407 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
R
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.10216 OF 2012(MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 10407 OF 2012
IN MFA NO.10216 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
M/S ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE,
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
BRANCH OFFICE NO.132,
BRIGADE ROAD,
THROUGH CORPORATE OFFICE,
SUBRAMANYAM BUILDINGS,
II FLOOR NO.1,
CLUB HOUSE ROAD,
ANNASALAI, CHENNAI.
Digitally signed
by RAMYA D
...APPELLANT
Location: HIGH (BY SRI. C.R. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR
COURT OF
KARNATAKA SRI. K. SURYANARAYANA RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. CHOWDAPPA,
S/O VENKATASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/O DODDAMANNUGUDDE DODDI,
KASABA HOBLI, RAMANAGARAM,
2. KRISHNEGOWDA,
S/O MUGOOREGOWDA,
KURUBARAHALLI, KALABAL,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:25508
MFA No. 10216 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 10407 of 2012
SATHANUR HOBLI,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DIST.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A.K.BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. RAJU.S, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. BHUVAN K.P, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.07.2012 PASSED IN MVC
NO.102/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, RAMANAGARAM,
AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF Rs.1,67,040/- WITH
INTEREST @ 6% P.A. EXCEPT ON Rs.10,000/- FOR FUTURE
MEDICAL EXPENSES, FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
PAYMENT.
IN MFA NO.10407 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
SRI. CHOWDAPPA,
S/O VENKATASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/O DODDAMANNUGUDDE DODDI,
KASABA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA,
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. A.K.BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. RAJU.S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI.KRISHNEGOWDA,
S/O MUGOOREGOWDA,
R/AT KURUBARAHALLI, KALABAL,
SATHANUR HOBLI,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DIST-571 511.
2. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE,
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
I AND II FLOOR,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:25508
MFA No. 10216 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 10407 of 2012
SRI.BALAJI SAREES, NO.132,
BRIGADE ROAD,
BANGALORE-25.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.MALLESHGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. C.R. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. K. SURYANARAYANA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.07.2012 PASSED IN MVC
NO.102/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, RAMANAGARAM, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENTOF COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
MFA.No.10216/2012 is filed by the appellant/Insurance Company questioning liability fastened on the Insurance Company and
MFA.No.10407/2012 is filed by the appellant/claimant seeking for enhancement of compensation under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'MV Act' for short) challenging the judgment and award dated 26.07.2012 passed in MVC.No.102/2007 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Addl. MACT, Ramanagaram.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:25508 MFA No. 10216 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 10407 of 2012
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 28.12.2006 at about 2.30 p.m., the claimant-injured was doing mason work related to pipeline of Kabbalu- Kachuvanahalli Road and a tractor bearing No.KA-05-T- 2984 and a trailer bearing No.2985 came in a very high speed and dashed against the claimant who was working by the side of the road, as a result of which the claimant sustained grievous injuries. Therefore, the claimant preferred claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act, seeking compensation.
3. The factum of the accident and the injuries sustained are not in dispute. The only dispute is regarding whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation and whether the claimant is entitled to an enhancement of compensation.
4. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the records.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:25508 MFA No. 10216 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 10407 of 2012
5. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the offending vehicle involved is a tractor attached to a trailer, and the driver was holding a driving licence to drive the tractor, but there is no licence to drive the tractor attached to the trailer. Therefore, it is submitted that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation on the ground that the driver was not holding a driving licence to drive component of both a tractor and a trailer.
6. On the other hand, Sri. A.K.Bhat, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1/claimant submitted that the driver who holds a driving licence to drive a tractor is also competent to drive the tractor attached to the trailer as the unladen weight is less than 7,500 kilo grams and it is coming under the category of a light motor vehicle as per Section 2(21) of the MV Act. Therefore, it is submitted that the driver was holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive both the tractor and trailer. Hence, the Tribunal is correct in holding that Insurance Company -6- NC: 2024:KHC:25508 MFA No. 10216 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 10407 of 2012 is liable to pay the compensation. In support of his arguments, the learned Senior Counsel places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nagashetty Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., and others reported in (2001) 8 SCC 56.
7. Admittedly, in the present case, the vehicle involved in the accident was a tractor attached to a trailer. The driver was holding a driving licence to drive the light motor vehicle-tractor as per Ex.R3-driving licence extract. Now the question is whether a person holding a driving licence to drive the light motor vehicle-tractor is competent to drive component of tractor attached to the trailer.
8. Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which reads as follows:
"Section 2(21):- light motor vehicle means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7500] kilo grams."-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:25508 MFA No. 10216 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 10407 of 2012 Therefore, the light motor vehicle means in case of tractor the unladen weight does not exceed 7500 kilo grams then the tractor is light motor vehicle.
9. Section 2 (46) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which reads as follows:
"Section 2(46):- trailer means any vehicle, other than a semi-trailer and a side-car, drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle"
10. Admittedly, Ex.R4- the insurance policy was issued for the tractor and an extra premium towards the trailer was collected. Therefore, if a person holds a driving licence to drive the tractor, it also includes driving the tractor attached to the trailer, otherwise, mere tractor engine will be used ploughing/tiller purpose. If a tractor is attached to a trailer, then the tractor becomes a vehicle for using transport purpose. Therefore, if a trailer is attached to the tractor and the driver holds a driving licence to drive the tractor, then the driver can also be said to be a competent driver to drive the tractor and trailer. The trailer does not have any independent source -8- NC: 2024:KHC:25508 MFA No. 10216 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 10407 of 2012 of energy to move as it can be moved only by the attached tractor. Therefore, if the driver holds a driving licence to drive the light motor vehicle-tractor, then he is competent to drive the tractor attached to the trailer.
11. Light motor vehicle means considering that tractor trailer involved in the present case as per Section 2(21) of the MV Act. If there is only a tractor, then the unladen weight of a tractor is in criteria to hold this light motor vehicle as the unladen weight does not exceed 7,500 kilo grams. If a tractor is attached to a trailer, then it would become a transport vehicle or may be a non- transport vehicle. In such an event, the gross vehicle weight shall not exceed 7,500 kilo grams. Therefore, if a tractor is attached to a trailer, it will be categorized as a transport vehicle and if this transport vehicle's gross weight does not exceed 7,500 kilo grams, then it is also a light motor vehicle. If a tractor is attached to two or more trailers, then the gross vehicle weight definitely exceeds 7500 kgs. Therefore, if two trailers are attached to a -9- NC: 2024:KHC:25508 MFA No. 10216 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 10407 of 2012 tractor, then it would not come within the criteria of a light motor vehicle under Section 2(21) of the MV Act. Therefore, when a single trailer is attached to a tractor and its gross vehicle weight does not exceed 7,500 kilo grams, then it is categorized as a light motor vehicle. If two or more trailers are attached to a tractor, then certainly it would not be a light motor vehicle. In the present case, in the RC book, mentioned gross vehicle weight is not exceeding 7,500 kilo grams. Therefore, in the present case, the tractor with trailer is categorized as a light motor vehicle as per Section 2(21) of the MV Act.
12. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nagashetty Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., and others reported in (2001) 8 SCC 56, at para Nos.10, 11 and 12, which reads as follows:
"10. We are unable to accept the submissions of Mr S.C. Sharda. It is an admitted fact that the driver had a valid and effective licence to drive a tractor. Undoubtedly under Section 10, a licence is granted to drive specific categories of motor vehicles. The question is whether
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25508 MFA No. 10216 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 10407 of 2012 merely because a trailer was attached to the tractor and the tractor was used for carrying goods, the licence to drive a tractor becomes ineffective. If the argument of Mr S.C. Sharda is to be accepted, then every time an owner of a private car, who has a licence to drive a light motor vehicle, attaches a roof carrier to his car or a trailer to his car and carries goods thereon, the light motor vehicle would become a transport vehicle and the owner would be deemed to have no licence to drive that vehicle. It would lead to absurd results. Merely because a trailer is added either to a tractor or to a motor vehicle by itself does not make that tractor or motor vehicle a transport vehicle. The tractor or motor vehicle remains a tractor or motor vehicle. If a person has a valid driving licence to drive a tractor or a motor vehicle, he continues to have a valid a licence to drive that tractor or motor vehicle even if a trailer is attached to it and some goods are carried in it. In other words, a person having a valid driving licence to drive a particular category of vehicle does not become disabled to drive that vehicle merely because a trailer is added to that vehicle.
11. In this case we find that the Insurance Company, when issuing the insurance policy, had also so understood. The insurance policy has been issued for a tractor. In this insurance policy, an additional premium of Rs.12 has been taken for a trailer. Therefore the insurance policy covers not just the tractor but also a trailer attached to the tractor. The insurance policy provides as follows for the "person or classes of persons entitled to drivea":
"person or classes of persons entitled to drive, Any person including insured provided that the person driving holds an effective driving licence at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a license:
Provided also that the person holding an effective learner's licence may also drive the vehicle when not used for the transport of goods at the time of the accident and that such a person satisfies the requirements of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, limitations as to use."
12. The policy is for a tractor. The "effective driving licence" is thus for a tractor. The restriction on a learner driving the tractor when used for transporting goods shows that the policy itself contemplates that the tractor could be used for carriage of goods. The tractor by itself could not carry goods. The goods would be carried in a trailer attached to it. That is why the extra premium for
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25508 MFA No. 10216 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 10407 of 2012 a trailer. The restriction placed on a person holding a learner's licence i.e. not to drive when goods are being carried is not there for a permanent licenceholder. Thus a permanent licenceholder having an effective/valid licence to drive a tractor can drive even when the tractor is used for carrying goods. When the policy itself so permits, the High Court was in coming to the conclusion that a person having a valid driving licence to drive a tractor would become disqualified to drive the tractor, if a trailer was attached to it."
13. Further it is noticed that the insurance policy issued is for tractor and trailer. For trailer, an extra premium was collected. Therefore, the person who holds a driving license to drive a light motor vehicle-tractor is also competent to drive the tractor attached to single trailer. On this ground, the Insurance Company cannot be exonerated. Therefore, the Insurance Company shall indemnify the owner and pay compensation to the claimant.
14. The Tribunal has awarded compensation under various heads as follows:
Amount Sl.No. Particulars (in Rs.)
1. Pain and sufferings 35,000.00
2. Attendants charges 2,000.00
3. Loss of income during laid up period 4,000.00
4. Medical expenses 16,200.00
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25508 MFA No. 10216 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 10407 of 2012
5. Loss of future income 99,840.00
6. Compensation towards future 10,000.00 medical expenses.
Total 1,67,040.00
15. From the medical evidence on records, it is proved that the claimant had sustained fracture of shaft left femur at junction of distal third of mid which is grievous in nature.
16. The claimant is a mason by profession. The accident was caused on 28.12.2006. The Tribunal has taken notional income at Rs.4,000/- per month, which is correct. The doctor had assessed the percentage of physical disability as 13% towards whole body, which was found to be correct and properly assessed. But the Tribunal has not awarded the compensation under the head of 'loss of amenities' and the compensation awarded under the other heads is also found to be on the lesser side. Therefore, the same needs to be enhanced.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25508 MFA No. 10216 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 10407 of 2012
17. Considering the above facts, circumstances and evidence on record, it is just and proper to make enhancement of compensation by awarding another sum of Rs.50,000/- Therefore, the claimant is entitled for additional sum of Rs.50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till its realisation, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal.
18. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER i. MFA.No.10216/2012 is filed by the appellant/Insurance Company questioning liability fastened on the Insurance Company is dismissed.
ii. MFA.No.10407/2012 is filed by the appellant/claimant seeking for enhancement is allowed-in-part.
iii. The judgment and award dated 26.07.2012 passed in MVC.No.102/2007 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Addl. MACT, Ramanagaram, is
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25508 MFA No. 10216 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 10407 of 2012 hereby modified that the claimant is entitled for additional compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal.
iv. The Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation to the claimant by indemnifying the owner.
v. No order as to costs.
vi. Draw award accordingly.
vii. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records along with certified copy of this order, forthwith.
SD/-
JUDGE KTY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19