Karnataka High Court
T. Jagannatha @ Thodamala Jagannatha Hc vs K. Gangadhar S/O Kariyappa on 9 August, 2017
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
ON THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
MFA NO.21076/2013 (MV-I)
BETWEEN
T. JAGANNATHA @ THODAMALA JAGANNATHA HC
S/O LATE T KRISHNA MURTHY,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: ICE-CREAM BUSINESS,
R/O: K.B. PALACE, RAYADURGA,
PRESENTLY R/O: 1ST CROSS, GANDHINAGAR,
BELLARY
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.MANJUNATHA G.PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. K. GANGADHAR S/O KARIYAPPA
AGE: 32 YEARS, DRIVER CUM OWNER
OF THE AUTO RICHKSHAW BEARING
REG.NO.KA-16/B-3021,
R/O: THAMMAINAHALLI-VILLAGE,
TALUK: MALAKALMUR,
DIST:CHITRADURGA.
2. M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, BELLARY.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.N.R.KUPPELLUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
RESPONDENT NO.1-SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.08.2012 PASSED IN
MVC.NO.1294/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT-IX,
BELLARY, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
:2:
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Though, the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of both the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.
3. This appeal is preferred by the appellant against the judgment and award dated 21.08.2012, passed in MVC No.1294/2011 on the file of the Member MACT-IX, Ballari, by urging various grounds.
4. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to in this appeal, as per their rank before the Tribunal.
5. The factual matrix of the case are as under; On 25.06.2011, while the petitioner being the pillion rider along with one Rudrachari being rider of Hero Honda Splendor Motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-35/Q- :3: 0165 proceeding from Rayadurga towards Ballari. At that time, the respondent No.1 being the driver of the auto- rickshaw bearing No.KA-16/B-3021 came from opposite direction drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed to the right leg of the petitioner on Ballari Rayadurga Road near Kotha Hadagali Village. Due to the same, he sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident he was taken Community Health Center, Rayadurga on the very Auto Rickshaw. Later on he was shifted to Asha Hospital, Ballari, wherein he was underwent operation and treated as an inpatient, implants were inserted and also he took follow up treatment. Hence, the petitioner has filed the claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation by urging various grounds
6. After service of notice, the respondent No.1 remained exparte and respondent No.2-Insurance Company has appeared through their counsel and has filed written statement. The respondent No.2-Insurance Company in his written statement contended that the :4: accident was due to rash and negligent driving by the respondent No.1 being the driver of the auto-rickshaw bearing No.KA-16/B-3021, and the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. It is further contended that the respondent No.1 driver of the offending auto-rickshaw was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive such category of vehicle as on the date of accident and the vehicle was plied without having any valid permit. As thus, sought for dismissal of the claim petition by urging various grounds by filing written statement in detail.
7. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed as many as five issues.
8. In order to prove the case, the petitioner examined himself as PW1 and also examined the Doctor as PW2 and got marked 60 documents as Exs.P1 to P60 and closed his side. On behalf of the respondent No.2- Insurance Company RW1 is examined and got marked the documents as Exs.R1 and R3 and closed their side. Subsequently, the Tribunal answered the issue Nos.1 and :5: 2 in the affirmative, issue No.3 and also issue No.4 in partly affirmative and petitioner is entitled to receive compensation of Rs.2,17,600/- from the respondent No.1 only along with future interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Against which, the impugned judgment has been challenged in this appeal by urging various grounds by the petitioner.
9. Learned counsel appearing 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 circumstance 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?:6:
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 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 :7: 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 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 :8: 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 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::9:
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 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." : 10 :
43. Section 10(2)(a) to (j) lays down the classes of vehicles to be driven not a specific kind of motor vehicles in that class. If a vehicle falls into any of the categories, a licence holder holding licence to drive the class of vehicle can drive all vehicles of that particular class. No separate endorsement is to be obtained nor provided, if the vehicle falls in any of the particular classes of section 10(2). This Court has rightly observed in Nagashetty (supra) that in case submission to the contrary is 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 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 a absurd results. Merely because a trailer is added either to a tractor or to a motor vehicle it by itself does not mean that driver ceased to have valid driving licence. In our considered opinion, even if such a vehicle is treated as transport vehicle of the light motor vehicle class, legal position would not change and driver would still have a valid driving licence to drive transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class, whether it is a transport : 11 : vehicle or a private car/tractor attached with trolley or used for carrying goods in the form of transport vehicle. The ultimate conclusion in Nagashetty (supra) is correct, however, for the reasons as explained by us."
10. 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 appeal is allowed in part, insofar as saddling the liability on the Insurance Company is concerned. Accordingly, the respondent No.2-Insurance Company is liable to satisfy the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
11. Whereas, the question as regards enhancement of compensation is concerned, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and the same does not call for interference.
12. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is hereby allowed in part.: 12 :
(ii) The judgment and award insofar as liability is concerned, is modified only to the extent that the Insurance Company is liable to satisfy the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
(iii) The rest of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal shall remain in tact.
(iv) Respondent No.2-Insurance Company is granted eight weeks time deposit the entire compensation amount before the Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE Vnp*