Karnataka High Court
Shrishail S/O Shivabasappa Paschapur vs M/S Station Hooger on 29 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4685-DB
MFA.CROB No. 100032 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 100630 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
M.F.A. CROB. NO.100032 OF 2019
C/W M.F.A. NO.100630 OF 2018 (MV)
IN M.F.A. CROB. NO. 100032 OF 2019:
BETWEEN:
1. GIREVVA W/O. BASAPPA DEMATTI,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: M.K. HUBLI, TQ:BAILHONGAL,
DIST:BELAGAVI.
2. BASAPPA S/O. YALLAPPA DEMATTI,
AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: TRACTOR DRIVER,
R/O: M.K.HUBLI, TQ:BAILHONGAL,
DIST:BELAGAVI.
Digitally signed by
SAMREEN AYUB
DESHNUR ...CROSS OBJECTORS
Location: HIGH (BY SRI. VITTHAL S.TELI, ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. M/S. STATION HOOGER PRIPRIETOR
OF AGRO FEEDS CO. LTD.,
NO.498, U.U. NAGAR 5TH CROSS,
HART LAYOUT, BENGALURU.
2. SHRISHAIL S/O. SHIVABASAPPA PASCHAPUR,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4685-DB
MFA.CROB No. 100032 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 100630 of 2018
AGE: MANOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: A/O:M.K.HUBLI, TQ:BAILHONGAL,
DIST:BELAGAVI.
3. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER,
HAVING ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE
AT MAHADEV PLAZA, CTS NO.10719,
SY NO.1357/A, NEAR KOLHAPUR CIRCLE,
NEHRU NAGAR, BELAGAVI.
4. CHANNAPPA S/O. SHIVABASAPPA PACHCHAPUR,
AGE:MAJOR, OCC:BUSINESS,
R/O:A/O: M.K.HUBLI, TQ:BAILHONGAL,
DIST:BELAGAVI.
5. HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER,
HAVING ITS CORPORATION OFFICE AT 6TH FLOOR,
LEELA BUSINESS PARK, ANDHERI KURLA ROAD,
ANDHERI (E) MUMBAI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.M. KALAWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R4;
SRI. G.N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI. NAGARAJ C. KOLLOORI, ADVOCATE FOR R5;
NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA. CROB IN MFA NO.100630/2018 IS FILED
UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC., 1908, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.12.2017 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1905/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4685-DB
MFA.CROB No. 100032 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 100630 of 2018
IN M.F.A. NO. 100630 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
1. SHRISHAIL S/O. SHIVABASAPPA PASCHAPUR,
AGE: YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS,
R/O: A/O:M.K.HUBLI, TQ:BAILHONGAL,
DIST:BELAGAVI.
2. CHANNAPPA S/O. SHIVABASAPPA PACHCHAPURI,
AGE: YEAR, OCC:BUSINESS,
R/O:A/O: M.K.HUBLI, TQ:BAILHONGAL,
DIST:BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. S.M. KALAWAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S. STATION HOOGER,
PROPRIETORS OF AGRO FEEDS CO. LTD.,
NO.498, U.U.NAGAR 5TH CROSS,
HART LAYOUT, BENGALURU.
2. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REP. BY ITS MANAGER,
HAVING ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE
AT MAHADEV PLAZA, CTS NO.10719,
SY NO.1357/A, NEAR KOLHAPUR CIRCLE,
NEHRU NAGAR, BELAGAVI.
3. HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REP. BY ITS MANAGER,
HAVING ITS CORPORATION OFFICE
AT 6TH FLOOR, LEELA BUSINESS PARK,
ANDHERI KURLA ROAD,
ANDHERI (E) MUMBAI.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4685-DB
MFA.CROB No. 100032 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 100630 of 2018
4. SMT. GIREVVA W/O. BASAPPA DEMATTI,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: M.K. HUBLI, TQ:BAILHONGAL,
DIST:BELAGAVI.
5. BASAPPA S/O. YALLAPPA DEMATTI,
AGE:61 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS,
R/O: M.K. HUBLI, TQ:BAILHONGAL,
DIST:BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VITTHAL S.TELI, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5;
SRI. G.N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. NAGARAJ C.KOLLOORI, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.12.2017
PASSED IN MVC NO.1905/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE IX
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND
ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI,
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.6,85,000/- WITH INTEREST
AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS
REALISATION.
THIS MFA. CROB AND M.F.A., COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, UMESH M. ADIGA, J., MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4685-DB
MFA.CROB No. 100032 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 100630 of 2018
JUDGMENT
Both these appeals arise out of common judgment and award passed by the IX Addl. District and Sessions Judge and Addl. MACT, Belagavi, (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal" for short) dated 05.12.2017 in M.V.C. No.1905/2015.
2. Claimants have filed M.F.A. CROB.
No.100032/2019 claiming enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The owners of the tractor and trailer have filed M.F.A. No.100630/2018 challenging the impugned judgment in respect of quantum of compensation and saddling the liability on them to pay compensation. Both the matters are taken up together for disposal.
3. For the sake of convenience, we refer to the parties as their rank before the Tribunal.
4. It is the case of the claimants that claimants are the parents of the deceased Dhareppa Dematti. On 10.01.2015 at 18:30 hours at Badas village deceased was -6- NC: 2024:KHC-D:4685-DB MFA.CROB No. 100032 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 100630 of 2018 proceeding by walk; at that time, a tractor bearing registration No.KA-04/P-7832 and Nos.KA-24/TA-6616 and KA-24/TA-6617, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, ran over the deceased. As a result of which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the said injuries.
5. It is further case of the claimants that deceased was aged about 23 years and he was working as a mason and earning Rs.12,000/- per month. Claimants were entirely depending upon the said earnings. With these reasons, claimants have prayed for awarding compensation.
6. The insurers of both the vehicles have filed objections denying all the contents of the claim petition. It has further contended that its liability is restricted to terms and conditions of the policy of insurance and holding of valid and effective driving licence by driver of tractor and trailer. With these reasons prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4685-DB MFA.CROB No. 100032 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 100630 of 2018
7. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal had framed the necessary issues for determination.
8. The claimants on their behalf examined P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P8 and closed their evidence. The insurers have examined R.W.1 and R.W.2 and got marked the documents at Exs.R1 to R9.
9. The Tribunal, after hearing both the side and appreciating the pleadings and evidence on record, held that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by its driver and that the claimants are entitled for compensation.
10. The Tribunal has assessed the age of deceased as 23 years, his income as Rs.7,500/- per month, deducted 50% towards personal expenses, applied 13 multiplier and awarded following amount of compensation.
Loss of dependency Rs.5,85,000/-
Loss of love and Rs.50,000/-
affection
Loss of estate Rs.25,000/-
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4685-DB
MFA.CROB No. 100032 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 100630 of 2018
Transportation of dead Rs.25,000/-
body and funeral
expenses.
Total Rs.6,85,000/-
11. The Tribunal also held that driver of offended tractor and trailers was not holding valid and effective driving licence and hence directed owner of vehicle to pay the compensation.
12. We have heard the arguments of learned advocates for both sides.
13. The main contention of learned advocates for insurers is that the driver of the tractor had no valid and effective driving licence to drive the said class of vehicle. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability on the owner of the tractor and trailers. Elaborating the said arguments, it was submitted that the tractor was attached with two trailers which was loaded with sugarcane. The driver of the tractor had licence to drive non-transport tractor and trailer. The driver ought to have licence to -9- NC: 2024:KHC-D:4685-DB MFA.CROB No. 100032 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 100630 of 2018 drive tractor with two trailers and transport vehicle. Hence, driver had not valid and effective driving licence.
14. The learned advocates for the insurers have further submitted that as per Section 2(14) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "Act" for short) as well as Section 2(47) of the Act to drive vehicle with the goods, he should have licence to drive such class of vehicle as prescribed under the law.
15. Section 2(14) of the Act defines about the "goods carriage" vehicle and Section 2(47) of the Act defines about "transport vehicle". If both sections are read conjointly, then driver of the vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence and the Tribunal has rightly considered the same and held that owner of the tractor as well as trailer are liable to pay the compensation, which does not call for interference.
16. Learned advocate for the owners of the tractor and trailers have submitted that driver of the vehicle had licence to drive tractor (NT). It is settled law by the
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4685-DB MFA.CROB No. 100032 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 100630 of 2018 Hon'ble Apex Court that if a person having driving licence of that class of vehicle is sufficient and there is no need to obtain licence for driving of a "transport vehicle". In the case of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited1, it is specifically held that as per Section 10 of the Act, there is no different class of licence to drive transport and non-transport vehicle and hence, the person holding licence to drive non-transport vehicle can drive transport vehicle also. The said principle is not followed by the Tribunal. He has further submitted that in a similar facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nagashetty vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others2, held that person who is having a licence to drive the tractor, can drive the tractor alongwith trailer containing the goods. In the present case also, the driver of the tractor had licence to drive tractor cum trailer. Therefore, it is sufficient compliance of provision of law pertaining to the driving licence. That said fact is also 1 (2017) 14 SCC 663 2 (2001) 8 SCC 56
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4685-DB MFA.CROB No. 100032 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 100630 of 2018 not considered by the Tribunal. Therefore, the owners of the tractor and trailer prayed to fasten the liability on the insurer to pay the compensation. With these reasons prayed to allow the appeal.
17. Following questions arises for our determination:
i) Whether Tribunal is justified in fastening liability on the owner of vehicle on the ground that driver of tractor cum trailer had no valid and effective driving licence?
ii) Whether claimants are entitled for enhancement?
18. Respondents have produced driving licence of driver of tractor at Ex.R3. It indicates that he had a licence to drive "tractor trailer (NT)", which is in force from 14.12.2010 to 13.12.2015. This fact is not in dispute and it is produced by insurers.
19. The next question is whether the driver can drive the tractor with goods. The strange submission of
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4685-DB MFA.CROB No. 100032 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 100630 of 2018 learned advocates appearing for the insurers is that depending upon the laden weight of the trailers, prescribed driving licence is required. However, the learned advocates appearing for both the insurers were unable to show that as per the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 that same class of vehicle required different driving licence based on the laden weight of vehicle. The said submission is unknown to the law.
20. Section 10 of the Act does not prescribe any such classification while issuing of the driving licence. Therefore, the said submission is not acceptable.
21. Learned advocates appearing for insurer of both the insurance company, all the while argued as, if driver had licence to drive the tractor alone, when it was brought to the notice of the learned advocate for the insurer that the said driver had licence to drive tractor cum trailer, they started arguing that it is licence to drive "tractor and trailer", ("non-transport vehicle"). The said submission is also not acceptable. As per Section 10 of the Act, there are
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4685-DB MFA.CROB No. 100032 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 100630 of 2018 no two classes, in respect of tractor cum trailer as transport and non-transport. Section 2(44) of the Act defines what is the "tractor" and Rule 2(46) defines the term "trailer". There is no different class of the driving licence is required to drive tractor and trailer with the goods.
22. In the case of Mukund Dewangan, referred by the learned advocate for the claimants, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that a person holding the licence to drive non- transport vehicle can drive transport vehicle of that class and there is no need to have an endorsement on the licence to drive transport vehicle. Therefore, even though there is no reference regarding driving of transport vehicle in Ex.R3, the driver of the "tractor trailer" can drive tractor and trailer transport vehicle.
23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nagashetty (referred supra), it is held that:
"Undoubtedly under section 10 of MV Act a licence is granted to drive specific categories of
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4685-DB MFA.CROB No. 100032 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 100630 of 2018 motor vehicles. The question is whether 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. SC 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 carriers 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 continues to have a valid 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."
24. The law laid down in the above said judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court will set at rest the controversies regarding valid driving licence of the driver of the said tractor cum trailer. The Tribunal has not considered these
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4685-DB MFA.CROB No. 100032 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 100630 of 2018 facts in detail. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nagashetty and Mukund Dewangan (referred supra), the Tribunal ought to have directed the insurer of both the tractor and trailers to pay the compensation. The said findings are erroneous, which needs to be interfered.
25. Claimants have contended that deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- per month. The said fact is not proved by substantive evidence. The Tribunal has assessed the notional income of the deceased as Rs.7,500/- per month. It is on lower side. The Karnataka State Legal Services Authority has prepared schedule of notional income of victim of an accident in consultation with stake holder. According to the said chart, income of the victim of an accident of the year 2015 is Rs.8,000/- per month that could be applied to the facts of the present case. The Tribunal has accepted the age of the deceased as 23 years that is not disputed. As per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4685-DB MFA.CROB No. 100032 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 100630 of 2018 Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others3, future prospects of 40% income needs to be added. The deceased was bachelor, therefore, 50% of income is to be deducted towards personal expenses. The appropriate multiplier applicable to the facts of the present case is 18. On the basis of above said calculations, compensation under the head loss of dependency is recalculated.
26. Keeping in mind the law laid down in the cases of Pranay Sethi's (supra), Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Others4 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Satinder Kaur and Others5, the compensation is awarded under conventional heads. The claimants are entitled for following compensation:
Loss of dependency. Rs.12,09,600/- (Rs.8,000 + 40% - 50% X 12 X 18) Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- X 2 Rs.80,000/-
Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
Funeral expenses and transportation Rs.15,000/-
3
AIR 2017 SC 5157
4
(2018) 18 SCC 130
5
2020 ACJ 2131
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4685-DB
MFA.CROB No. 100032 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 100630 of 2018
Total amount Rs.13,19,600/-
27. Claimants are entitled to enhancement of
compensation of Rs.6,34,600/- (Rs.13,19,600 -
Rs.6,85,000).
28. For the aforesaid reasons, we answer both the questions in favour of the appellants and pass the following:
ORDER
(i) M.F.A. CROB No.100032/2019 and M.F.A. No.100630/2018 are partly allowed.
(ii) The judgment and award dated 05.12.2017 passed in M.V.C. No.1905/2015 by the IX Addl. District and Sessions Judge and Addl.
M.A.C.T., Belagavi is modified:
(iii) Claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.13,19,600/- as against Rs.6,85,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal i.e., they are entitled for enhancement of Rs.6,34,600/-
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4685-DB MFA.CROB No. 100032 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 100630 of 2018 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of petition till realization of the entire amount.
(iv) Respondents - insurers of both tractors and trailers shall share the liability to pay the amount equally and shall deposit the amount within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the award.
(v) The order of the Tribunal on apportionment, deposit etc., are not disturbed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE RSH, CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31