Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Smt Puttamma on 24 March, 2015
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA
M.F.A. No.4693/2012 (MV)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
CHOLAMANDALAM M.S.GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
NO.363, SHRIHARI COMPLEX, RAMAVILAS ROAD
MYSORE, BY CHOLAMANDALAM M.S.GENERAL INSURANCE CO.
LTD., NO.135/5 15TH CROSS, J P NAGAR 3RD PHASE
BANGALORE - 560 078
BY ITS CLAIMS MANAGER. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. PUTTAMMA
W/O LATE LAKSHMANAGOWDA, 39 YEARS
2. G.L. SAVITHA
D/O LATE LAKSHMANAGOWDA, 25 YEARS
3. G.L. KAVITHA
D/O LATE LAKSHMANAGOWDA , 23 YEARS
4. G.L. LAKKEGOWDA
S/O LATE LAKSHMANAGOWDA, 21 YEARS
5. SAKAMMA
W/O LATE SUBBEGOWDA, 63 YEARS
2
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 5 ARE
R/AT GULUKAYIHYOSAHALLY VILLAGE
BINDIGANAVILE HOBLI, BIDARAKERE POST
NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 432.
6. MANJUNATHA @ MANJU
S/O RAJEGOWDA, MAJOR, R/O SATHENAHALLI VILLAGE
BINDIGANVILE HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 432. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.Y.SREENIVASAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5; R6 -
SERVED)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.01.2012
PASSED IN MVC NO.69/2009 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE & MEMBER, MACT AT NAGAMANGALA, AWARDING
COMPENSATION WITH INTEREST & ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The short point for consideration in this appeal is:-
"Whether in the event of any accident by a light motor vehicle (transport) being driven by its driver, holding driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle (non-transport), the Insurance Company can disown its liability on the ground of absence of endorsement to drive a transport vehicle?"3
2. I have heard Sri O.Mahesh, learned counsel for Insurance Company and Sri M.Y.Sreenivasan, learned counsel for claimants.
3. The aforestated question is covered by the following judgments of the Supreme Court:-
I. Civil Appeal No.8639/2014 dated 10.09.2014 (in the case of S.Chinnaswamy vs. Rathnamma & others); II. 2014 ACJ 2873 (in the case of Kulwant Singh & others Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.)
4. The learned single Judge of this court in MFA No.21080/2009 and connected matters dated 05.01.2015 has held even if there is breach of policy by the insured, it is the statutory right of a third party to receive compensation from the insurer. The insurer can proceed against the insured for recovery of the amount, in the event, if there has been violation of any conditions of policy. 4
5. Sri O.Mahesh, learned counsel for Insurance Company, referring to Form No.4 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short, 'the Rules') would submit that with effect from 28.03.2001, a light motor vehicle (transport) cannot be driven in the absence of transport endorsement in terms of section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act').
6. In Civil Appeal No.8639/2014 dated 10.09.2014 (in the case of S.Chinnaswamy vs. Rathnamma & others) and the decision reported in 2014 ACJ 2873 (in the case of Kulwant Singh & others Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.), the Supreme Court has held that Insurance Company cannot disown its liability on the ground that driver was driving a light motor vehicle (transport), without endorsement in the licence to drive a transport vehicle.
7. The learned single Judge of this court in MFA No.21080/2009 and connected matters dated 05.01.2015 5 has held that once the vehicle is covered under policy, section 149 of the Act makes it mandatory on the part of insurer to satisfy award made in favour of a third party. This court has held that under section 149 of the Act, if the vehicle is insured, it is the statutory right of a third party to receive compensation from the insurer. It is for the insurer to proceed against the insured for recovery of the same in the event, there has been a violation of any conditions of insurance policy.
8. The learned single Judge of this court has followed the following judgments:-
I. Skandia Insurance Company Limited Vs. Kokilaben Chandravadan (1987) 2 SCC 654; II. Sohanlal Passio Vs. P.Sesh Reddy & others (1996) 5 SCC 21;
III. New India Assurance Company, Shimla Vs. Kamla (2001) 4 SCC 342;
IV. National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297;
6V. National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Kusum Rai (2006) 4 SCC 250;
VI. Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanjappan and others (2004) 13 SCC 224;
VII. S.Iyyappan Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited (2013) 7 SCC 62.
9. In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that vehicle involved in the accident is a light motor vehicle (transport). The driver of vehicle was holding licence to drive a light motor vehicle (non-transport). The driving licence was issued on 04.03.2009, to be effective for a period of 20 years.
10. The perusal of driving licence, makes it explicitly clear that driving licence was issued to drive a light motor vehicle (non-transport).
11. In the decisions cited supra, the Supreme Court has held in the event of breach of such policy condition, the Insurance Company has to pay compensation and recover the same from the insured.
7
12. The learned single Judge of this court in MFA No.21080/2009 and connected matters dated 05.01.2015 has taken a similar view. Therefore, there are no reasons to take a different view in this matter.
13. Sri O.Mahesh, learned counsel for Insurance Company would submit that in the judgment made by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.8639/2014 dated 10.09.2014 (in the case of S.Chinnaswamy vs. Rathnamma & others), there is no reference to date on which driving licence was issued. The date of issuance of driving licence is very relevant in view of amendment to Form No.4 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short, 'the Rules') with effect from 28.03.2001.
14. This submission cannot be accepted in view of aforecited judgments, wherein the Supreme Court has held that if Insurance Company alleges breach of policy on the ground that driver possessing licence to drive a light motor vehicle (non-transport) had driven a light motor vehicle 8 (transport), without transport endorsement, such a breach of policy cannot be a ground for the Insurance Company to avoid third party liability. The learned single Judge of this court has also taken a similar view in MFA No.21080/2009 and connected matters dated 05.01.2015.
15. Therefore, the submission of learned counsel for Insurance Company cannot be accepted.
16. In the result, I pass the following:-
ORDER The appeal is dismissed. The amount in deposit shall be transferred to the Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE SNN