Karnataka High Court
Dadapeer vs Shiran Alikhan on 9 September, 2015
Bench: N.K.Patil, P.S.Dinesh Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 9th day of September, 2015
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. PATIL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR
MFA No.1120/2014 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. DADAPEER
S/O HUSSAIN SHEIKH
BATLIWALASI, MAJOR
R/O HOUSE NO.207
MADGOAN, GOA - 403 001
(DRIVER OF THE LORRY NO.KA-15-2298)
2. JAKIR HUSSAIN HOTTIPAKKIRANNANAVAR
D/O DADAPEER
MAJOR
R/O HOUSE NO.107
BILLALLI VILLAGE
RANEBENNUR TALUK
HAVERI DISTRICT - 581 115
(OWNER OF THE LORRY NO.KA-15-2298) ...APPELLANTS
(By Sri M V HIREMATH, Adv.,)
AND:
1. SHIRAN ALIKHAN
S/O SHOUKATH ALIKHAN
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
RESIDENT OF SASIVEHALLI VILLAGE
HONNALLI TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 571 127
2
2. THE MANAGER
SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
ALLCO INDUSTRIAL AREA
SITAPURA, JAYAPURA - 302 022
RAJASTHAN
BY ITS MANAGER ...RESPONDENTS
(R1 SERVED, UNREPRESENTED
Sri B PRADEEP, Adv., FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:7.12.2012 PASSED IN
MVC NO.93/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, HARIHAR, AWARDING A
COMPENSATION OF RS.18,90,179/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.
THIS MFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 25.08.2015 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, P.S. DINESH
KUMAR, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the owner and driver of a lorry who has been directed by the learned Senior Civil Judge & Addl. MACT., Harihar vide Judgment and Award dated 7.12.2013 in MVC No.93/2011 to pay a compensation of Rs.18,90,179/- to the claimant therein and absolving the Insurer from liability.
For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred as per their rank in the claim petition. 3
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, claimant presented a claim petition contending inter alia that he sustained injuries in a road traffic accident on 10.2.2011 while he was working as a Cleaner in a lorry bearing registration No.KA-15-2298 which dashed against a tractor - trailor bearing registration No.KA-26-TA-1160- 61; that he was aged 19 years and earning Rs.8,000/- per month; and that he was not able to discharge his work after the accident as he has sustained 100% disability.
3. Claim petition was resisted by the Owner of the lorry and the Insurer. The principal defence was that the driver of the lorry was not authorized to drive the lorry as he had licence to drive only a non - transport light motor vehicle (LMV - NT).
4. On consideration of the material on record, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.18,90,179/- payable with 6% interest per annum and recoverable from the owner and the driver of the lorry. The petition against the Insurer stood dismissed. Hence, this appeal. 4
5. We have heard Sri M.V. Hiremath, learned Counsel for the appellants and Sri B. Pradeep, learned Counsel for the first respondent and perused the material papers.
6. Learned Counsel for the appellants strenuously contends that the Tribunal grossly erred in absolving the Insurer and awarding disproportionately higher compensation to the claimant - first respondent.
7. Amplifying his contention with regard to absolving the Insurer, the learned Counsel submits that the Tribunal has wrongly come to the conclusion that the driver of the lorry was not holding a valid driving licence and that the licence possessed by the driver did not authorize him to drive the lorry in question. According to him, the licence produced at Exs.R4 & R5 was sufficient in law to permit the driver to drive the lorry in question. Accordingly, he prays for allowing this appeal. 5
8. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent - Insurer while supporting the judgment of the Tribunal submits that Exs.R4 & R5 clearly demonstrate that the licence possessed by the driver authorities him to drive LMV only. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in absolving the Insurer and accordingly prays for dismissal of the appeal.
9. In the light of the rival contentions urged by the parties, the only question that arises for our consideration is as to whether the driver of the lorry was holding a valid licence.
10. Admittedly, the lorry in question is described in the Certificate of Registration, Ex.R1 as a medium goods vehicle (MGV) manufactured by Eicher Motor Limited. Ex.R4 is the copy of the driving licence and Ex.R5 is the extract of driving licence issued by the Transport Department, Goa. The said documents disclose that the licence possessed by the driver authorized him to 6 drive a light motor vehicle (Transport) till 29.12.2013 and light motor vehicle (Non Transport) till 21.11.2019.
11. Admittedly, the lorry in question is a transport vehicle used as a goods carriage. Under Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' for short), the driver of the vehicle is required to possess specific licence to drive the class of vehicles described therein. There is a reference to transport vehicle under Section 10(2)(e) of the Act.
12. The Tribunal while dealing with the aspect of licence has adverted to the Certificate of Registration - Ex.R1, Permit - Ex.R2, copy of driving licence - Exs.R4 & R5. The vehicle in question is a medium goods vehicle and not a LMV. Therefore, specific endorsement is required to drive the lorry in question. RW.2, the Assistant Regional Transport Officer, has also stated in his evidence that a specific endorsement was required to drive the medium goods vehicle. Further, after referring to various pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, the Tribunal has rightly held that the driver of the vehicle was not holding an effective driving licence. 7
13. We have bestowed our anxious consideration to the rival submissions, the material on record and the judgment of the Tribunal. Exs.R4 & R5, copies of the licence are conspicuous enough to demonstrate that the licence possessed by the lorry driver authorized him to drive LMV only and he did not possess a valid licence to drive the lorry in question.
14. In the circumstances, no exception can be taken to the Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal. The appeal does not merit any consideration and accordingly stands dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE cp*