Karnataka High Court
United India Insurance Company ... vs Shivanna And Others on 15 March, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2001ACJ782, ILR2000KAR1608, 2000(5)KARLJ473, 2000 A I H C 2695, (2000) 5 KANT LJ 473, (2001) 1 TAC 87, (2001) 1 ACJ 782
Author: Ashok Bhan
Bench: Ashok Bhan, V.G. Sabhahit
JUDGMENT Ashok Bhan, J.
1. United India Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the insurer') has come up in appeal against the judgment and award of the MACT II, Mysore (for short, 'the Tribunal') in MVC No. 780 of 1992, dated 8th of July, 1998 with the plea that the insurer was not liable to pay the amount awarded as the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid licence to drive the said vehicle as on the date of the accident.
2. Shivanna, injured (hereinafter referred to as 'the claimant') was going on his M-50 mini motor cycle bearing registration No. CNA 231 on 15th of June, 1992 at about 6-50 a.m. to attend to his duty at railway workshop, Mysore. A lorry bearing No. MYM 6633 driven by Early Prasad-respondent 1 came from the cross road without halting on the main road. It came from the wrong side and hit the claimant as a result of which he sustained several injuries including a head injury. He was taken to JSS hospital for treatment. Thereafter he was referred to NIM-HANS, Bangalore. He filed the claim petition through his wife as the guardian stating therein that he had become a total mental and a physical wreck. He had lost his earning capacity for future. Respondent 2 is the owner of the offending vehicle which was fully insured with the appellant who was the third respondent before the Tribunal.
3. Respondents entered appearance and filed their statement of objections. Respondents 1 and 2 filed a joint written statement. They de-
nied the version of the accident and stated that the accident had taken place due to the negligent act of the claimant himself. It was admitted that the first respondent was driving the lorry in question at the relevant point of time and the second respondent was its lawful owner. It was further stated that the lorry was insured with the insurer as on the date of the accident. As a counter objection it was stated that the first respondent took right turn from Vidyaranyapuram, 16th cross road joining H.D. Kote main road. At that time claimant who was coming on his motor cycle at a high speed came from the opposite direction and hit the rear wheel of the lorry as a result of which he fell down and sustained injuries. That the claimant was not entitled to any compensation. In any case the claim made was exorbitant and unreasonable. Insurer in the written statement admitted that the lorry in question was insured with it and the policy was in operation as on the date of the accident. He did not admit that the first respondent was holding a valid driving licence and as such was not liable to indemnify the owner for the loss caused. It restricted its liability subject to the scope of the policy.
4. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues are framed:
1. Whether the motor accident which occurred on 15-6-1992 at 6-30 a.m. near the junction of 16th cross, Vidyaranyapuram and Mysore-Manandavadi road, was due to the rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing Registration No. MYM 6633, or M-50 mini motor cycle bearing Registration No. CNA 231 by the petitioner, or both?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? If so, how much?
3. Relief?
Additional Issue:
1. Whether respondent 3 proves that respondent 1 had no valid driving licence to drive a lorry at the time of the accident?
5. Parties were allowed to lead evidence.
6. On Issue No. 1, the Tribunal returned the finding that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing registration No. MYM 6633 by its driver. It was also held that the claimant did not in any way contribute in the causing of the accident. Under Issue No. 2, it was held that the claimant as a result of the injury had become totally disabled. Although he was conscious but would remain totally dependent on others for day-to-day work. Further finding recorded was that he could not communicate. He finds it difficult to walk without the help of others. He cannot follow and respond to any oral command. Keeping in view the severe nature of injuries, the age of the claimant, his income, the injuries suffered and the medical evidence, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 4,00,424/- as overall compensation under various heads. Under additional Issue No. 1, it was held that the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid driving licence to drive the lorry in question on the date of the accident. The insurer was held liable to indemnify the driver and the owner for the loss.
7. Insurer alone has come up in appeal. Counsel for the appellant has fairly conceded as the owner of the vehicle has not joined the insurer in filing the appeal he would not address arguments either on the question of negligence or on the point of quantum of compensation.
8. He has challenged the finding on additional Issue No. 1 relating to the liability of the appellant to reimburse the owner of the compensation awarded.
9. Counsel for the appellant argued that the driver of the lorry did not have a valid licence to drive the vehicle in question on the date of the accident. Elaborating the argument he stated that the driver had a licence to drive light motor vehicle, whereas the lorry in question was a goods vehicle and therefore a heavy motor vehicle. According to him a person with a licence for light motor vehicle can drive passenger motor cars, jeeps etc., only and not the goods or public transport vehicles.
10. We do not find substance in the argument raised. Admittedly the driver of the offending vehicle possessed a licence to drive light motor vehicles from 23rd April, 1992 to 20th of April, 1995. He was authorised to drive heavy goods vehicle with effect from January 1993. As the accident took place on 15th of June, 1992, the endorsement issued on January 1993 to drive heavy goods vehicle has no much relevance. As on the date of the accident he had a licence to drive light motor vehicle. As per the definition clause in Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 'light motor vehicle' means a transport vehicle or omni bus 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 7,500 kgs (7,500 kgs was substituted for 6,000, by Section 2 of Act 54 of 1994 with effect from 14-11-1994). It is not in dispute that the unladen weight of the offending lorry in question as per 'B' Register extract of the vehicle Ex. R. 3 is 4,960 kgs. As the weight of the offending vehicle was 4,960 kgs i.e., much less than 7,500 kgs it has to be treated as light motor vehicle. Light motor vehicle as per the definition would include a transport vehicle also.
11. Section 3 of the Act provides that no person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle; and that no person shall so drive a transport vehicle hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of Section 75 unless his driving licence specifically entitles him to do so. The driver had a valid licence to drive the light motor vehicle. Section 3 provides the necessity to have a driving licence and further to drive the type of vehicle for which he has been given a licence to drive. As the driver had the licence to drive a light motor vehicle he would be deemed to be authorised to drive all types of Light Motor Vehicle including a transport vehicle. Offending vehicle has to be treated as a light motor vehicle as its unladen weight was less than 7,500. As the driver had a valid licence for which the driver had a valid licence and the owner had entrusted the vehicle to the driver, the owner shall become vicariously liable to pay for the acts of his servants. Insurer as per the policy, had agreed to indemnify the owner and therefore becomes liable to pay the amount of compensation.
12. No other point was raised.
13. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in this appeal and dismiss the same with no order as to costs. The sum of Rs. 25,000/- deposited under Section 173 of the Act in this Court be remitted to the concerned Tribunal for disbursement to the claimants as per their entitlement.