Karnataka High Court
Icici Lombard Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., vs Sudha W/O. Shanmukha Shigli on 9 August, 2017
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
ON THE 09TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
MFA NO.20947/2013 (MV)
C/w MFA No.20946/2013
IN MFA NO.20947/2013 (MV)
BETWEEN
The ICICI Lombard Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.,
Bellad and Co. Bannigidada Cross,
Gokul Road, Hubli
....Appellant
(By Sri Nagaraj C.Kolloori,Adv.)
AND:
1. Smt. Sudha W/o Shanmukha Shigli
Age: 29 years, Occ: Hotel Business
R/o Siddeshwar Nagar, 2nd Cross, Ranebennur
Tq: Ranebennur, Dist: Haveri
2. Sri Mohammed S/o Sayed Sab
Age: Major, Occ: Business
R/o Behind Vasavi Mahal
Madakari Nagar, Challakere
Tq: Challakere, Dist: Chitradurga
.....Respondents
(By Sri Hanumanthreddy Sahukar, Adv. for R1;
Sri Harish Maigur, Adv. for R2)
:2:
This appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of MV
Act, against the judgment and award dated 24.12.2012
passed in MVC No.201/2011 on the file of the Addl.
Senior Civil and Member Addl. MACT, Ranebennur,
Awarding the compensation of Rs.2,80,200/- with
interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition
till its realization.
***
IN MFA NO.20946/2013 (MV)
BETWEEN
The ICICI Lombard Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.,
Bellad and Co. Bannigidada Cross,
Gokul Road, Hubli
....Appellant
(By Sri Nagaraj C.Kolloori, Adv.)
AND:
1. Sri Shanmukha
S/o Ramachandrappa Shigli
Age: 37 years,
Occ: Hotel Business and Driver
R/o Siddeshwar Nagar, 2nd Cross,
Ranebennur, Tq: Ranebennur,
Dist: Haveri
2. Sri Mohammed S/o Sayed Sab
Age: Major, Occ: Business
R/o Behind Vasavi Mahal
Madakari Nagar, Challakere
Tq: Challakere, Dist: Chitradurga
.....Respondents
(By Sri Hanumanthreddy Sahukar, Adv. for R1;
Sri Harish Maigur, Adv. for R2)
:3:
This appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of MV
Act, against the judgment and award dated 24.12.2012
passed in MVC No.200/2011 on the file of the Addl.
Senior Civil and Member Addl. MACT, Ranebennur,
Awarding the compensation of Rs.2,24,680/- with
interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition
till its realization.
These appeals coming on for Final Hearing this
day, the court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.
2. These appeals are preferred by the appellant under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and award dated 24.12.2012 passed in MVC No.201/2011 and MVC No.200/2011 on the file of the Addl. Senior Civil and Member Addl. MACT, Ranebennur, awarding the compensation of Rs.2,80,200/- and Rs.2,24,680/- respectively with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization, it is this in which these judgments have been challenged in these appeals by urging various grounds.
:4:
3. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the issue involved in the present case has been elaborately discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited in Civil Appeal No.5826/2011 decided on 03.07.2017 and the same is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case on hand, wherein it is held as follows:
"1. In the reference, the main question involved is whether a driver who is having a licence to drive 'light motor vehicle' and is driving 'transport vehicle' of that class is required additionally to obtain an endorsement to drive a transport vehicle?
xxxxx
42. In Nagashetty (supra), the vehicle involved was a tractor which was used for carrying goods. The goods were carried in a trailer attached to it. It was held that if a driver was holding an effective licence to drive a tractor, he could validly drive the tractor attached to a trailer. The contention that it was a transport vehicle, as the tractor was attached to a trailer and as such the driver was not holding a valid :5: licence, was rejected. This Court has laid down thus.
9. Relying on these definitions, Mr. S.C. Sharda submitted that admittedly the trailer was filled with stones. He submitted that once a trailer was attached to the tractor the tractor became a transport vehicle as it was used for carriage of goods. He submitted that Section 10(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for grant of licences to drive specific types of vehicles. He submitted that the driver only had a licence to drive a tractor. He submitted that the driver did not have a licence to drive a transport vehicle. He submitted that therefore it could not be said that the driver had an effective and valid driving licence to drive a goods carriage or a transport vehicle. He submitted that thus the driver did not have a valid driving licence to drive the type of vehicle he was driving. He submitted that as the driver did not have a valid driving licence to drive a transport vehicle, the Insurance Company could not be made liable. He submitted that the High Court was right in so holding.
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 :6: 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 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 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 :7: 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 "persons or classes of persons entitled to drive":
"Persons 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 licence:
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 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 licence-holder. Thus a permanent :8: licence-holder 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 wrong 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."
xxxxx
46. Section 10 of the Act requires a driver to hold a licence with respect to the class of vehicles and not with respect to the type of vehicles. In one class of vehicles, there may be different kinds of vehicles. If they fall in the same class of vehicles, no separate endorsement is required to drive such vehicles. As light motor vehicle includes transport vehicle also, a holder of light motor vehicle licence can drive all the vehicles of the class including transport vehicles. It was pre-amended position as well the post- amended position of Form 4 as amended on 28.03.2001. Any other interpretation would be repugnant to the definition of "light motor vehicle"
in section 2(21) and the provisions of section 10(2)(d), Rule 8 of the Rules 1989, other provisions and also the forms which are in the tune with the provisions. Even otherwise the forms never intended to exclude transport vehicles from the category of 'light motor vehicles' :9: and for light motor vehicle, the validity period of such licence hold good and apply for the transport vehicle of such class also and the expression in section 10(2)(e) of the Act 'Transport Vehicle' would include medium goods vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, heavy passenger motor vehicle which earlier found place in section 10(2)(e) to (h) and our conclusion is fortified by the syllabus and rules which we have discussed. Thus we answer the question which are referred to us thus:
(i) 'Light motor vehicle' as defined in Section 2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in section 2(21) read with section 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act No.54/1994.
(ii) A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, 'unladen weight' of which does not exceed 7500 kg. and holder of a driving licence to drive class of "light motor vehicle" as provided in Section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the "unladen weight" of which does : 10 : not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28.03.2001 in the form.
(iii) The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act No.54/1994 w.ef. 14.11.1994 while substituting clauses (e) to (h) of section 10(2) which contained "medium goods vehicle" in section 10(2)(e), medium passenger motor vehicle in section 10(2)(f), heavy goods vehicle in section 10(2)(g) and "heavy passenger motor vehicle" in section 10(2)(h) with expression 'transport vehicle' as substituted in section 10(2)(e) related only to the aforesaid substituted classes only. It does not exclude transport vehicle, from the purview of section 10(2)(d) and section 2(41) of the Act i.e. light motor vehicle.
(iv) The effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of "transport vehicle" is related only to the categories which were substituted in the year 1994 and the procedure to obtain driving licence for transport vehicle of class of "light motor vehicle" continues to be the same as it was and has not been changed and there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive : 11 : transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect."
4. However, the learned counsel for the appellant in these appeals has contended that in respect of quantum awarded by the Tribunal keeping in view the evidence of PW.3 the doctor who had given treatment for the petitioners for having sustained injuries which is indicated at Ex.P4 and Ex.P8 the wound certificates, Ex.P8 and Ex.P10 are the medical bills, Ex.P9 and P21 are the disability certificates, Exs.P11, and 23 are the prescriptions relating to the injured. Ex.P14 to 17 and Ex.P24 to 28 are the X-ray which were subjected to x- ray for having sustained injuries due to the accident on the fateful day, which is stated in their claim petition in detail by urging various grounds and the same has been established by them before the Tribunal for seeking compensation.
5. On evaluating the entire evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation to the injured in MVC No.200/2011 in a sum of Rs.2,24,680 and for : 12 : the injured in MVC No.201/2011 in a sum of Rs.2,80,200/-. But the quantum in which it under dispute in these appeals by the appellant has been contended for revisiting the impugned judgment. Hence, this aspect cannot be considered which is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant in these appeals, there are no justifiable grounds finds which calls for interference in these appeals.
6. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on considering the observations made in Mukund Dewangan's case, referred supra, the appeals do not survive for consideration and the same requires to be dismissed.
7. Whereas, as regards the question regarding reduction of the compensation, the amount awarded by the Tribunal being just and reasonable, the same does not call for interference.
In the result, I proceed to pass the following: : 13 :
ORDER
(i) The appeals are hereby dismissed.
(ii) The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal shall remain in tact.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE msr