Karnataka High Court
Shriram Gen Ins.Co.Ltd, E-8, Epip, ... vs Maruthi @ Marutheppa S/O.Kenchappa on 7 November, 2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A. PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.24352 of 2010
c/w MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.24353 of 2010 (MV)
IN MFA NO. 24352 OF 2010
BETWEEN
SHRIRAM GEN INS.CO.LTD,
E-8, EPIP, RIICO, SITAPUR,
JAIPUR, RAJASTAN 302022
REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
... APPELLANT
(By Sri NAGARAJ C KOLLOORI, ADV.)
AND
1. MARUTHI @ MARUTHEPPA S/O.KENCHAPPA
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC:DRIVER (HGV)
R/O.BEVINAHALLI, TQ & DIST:KOPPAL
2. MAHESH S/O.GAVISIDDAPPA KABBER
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC:DRIVER, R/O.DEVARAJ
URAS COLONY KOPPAL, TQ & DIST:KOPPAL
3. LALITAMMA W/O.GANGADHAR
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC:OWNER OF TATA MAGIC
R/O.DEVARAJ URAS COLONY KOPPAL
TQ & DIST:KOPPAL
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri A.S.PATIL & SRI D.V.PATTAR, ADVS. FOR R1
SRI RAJASHEKHAR R. GUNJALLI, ADV. FOR R3.
R2 SERVED.)
2
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V. ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.09.2010
PASSED IN MVC NO.639 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDITIONAL MACT AND FAST TRACK COURT-I AT KOPPAL
AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.2,04,600/- WITH
INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL ITS DEPOSIT.
IN MFA NO.24353 OF 2010
BETWEEN
SHRIRAM GEN INS.CO.LTD,
E-8, EPIP, RIICO, SITAPUR,
JAIPUR, RAJASTAN 302022
REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
... APPELLANT
(By Sri NAGARAJ C KOLLOORI, ADV.)
AND
1. YANKANAGOUDA S/O.AMAREGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC:AGRI, & CONTRACTOR,
R/O.BEVINAHALLI, TQ & DIST:KOPPAL
2. MAHESH S/O.GAVISIDDAPPA KABBER
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC:DRIVER, R/O.DEVARAJ
URAS COLONY KOPPAL, TQ & DIST:KOPPAL
3. LALITAMMA W/O.GANGADHAR
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC:OWNER OF TATA MAGIC
R/O.DEVARAJ URAS COLONY KOPPAL
TQ & DIST:KOPPAL
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri A.S.PATIL & SRI D.V.PATTAR, ADVS. FOR R1.
R2 AND R3 ARE SERVED.)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V. ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.09.2010
PASSED IN MVC NO.640 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDITIONAL MACT AND FAST TRACK COURT-I AT KOPPAL
AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.2,47,600/- WITH
INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL ITS DEPOSIT.
3
THESE MFAs COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
These present appeals have been preferred by the appellant-insurer assailing the judgment and award dated 23.09.2010 passed by the Additional MACT and Fast Track Court-I, Koppal in MVC Nos.639 and 640 of 2009.
2. The brief facts of the case as averred in the petitions are that on 29.07.2010, when the petitioners were proceeding on their motorcycle bearing registration No.KA- 35-J/705 on public road near Tungabhadra High School at Huligi town at that time, a Tata Magic bearing registration No.KA-37/7910 driven by 1st respondent came rashly and negligently and dashed to the motorcycle on which the petitioners were proceedings. As a result of the said impact, they fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately they were shifted to the Government Hospital, Munirabad and after taking first aid, they were admitted at Sripathi Nursing Home at Hospet. They having incurred huge expenses for their treatment, filed claim petitions under 4 Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the Tribunal.
In pursuance of the notice, respondents 1 and 2 appeared but did not file any written statement. 3rd respondent-insurer appeared and filed his written statement. By denying the contents of the petitions, it is further contended that the accident is due to rash and negligent act of the rider of the motorcycle. It is further contended that the first respondent was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive commercial vehicle and as such it is not liable to pay any compensation. On these grounds, it prayed for dismissal of the petitions.
On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
" In MVC 639 of 2009
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he sustained grievous injuries in the accident which occurred between Tungabhadra High School. Huligi, on dated 29.07.2009 at about 12.00 p.m. due to rash and negligent driving of Tata Magic Regn., bearing No.KA-37/7901 by its driver/respondent No.1?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation?
If so, how much, and from whom?
3. what order or award?
In MVC 639 of 2009:
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he sustained grievous injuries in the accident which occurred 5 between Tungabhadra High School. Huligi, on dated 29.07.2009 at about 12.00 p.m. due to rash and negligent driving of Tata Magic Regn., bearing No.KA-37/7901 by its driver/respondent?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation?
If so, how much, and from whom?
3. What order or award?
The petitioners, in order to prove their case, examined themselves as PWs.1 and 2 and they also examined the doctor as Pw-3 and got marked Exs.R-1 to R-15. On behalf of the respondents, officer of respondent No.3 is examined as RW-1 and he got marked the documents as Exs.R1 to R4.
After hearing the parties to the lis, the impugned judgment and award came to be passed.
Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant-insurer is before this Court.
3. Main grounds urged by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the driver of the Tata Magic bearing registration No.KA-37/7901 was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle at the time of the accident and as such, the Tribunal fastening the liability on the appellant-insurer is not sustainable in law. Though the learned counsel has taken up a contention 6 in the appeal memo that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side, at this juncture, he submits that he is not pressing the said contention. As such the only contention that remains for consideration by this Court is:
Whether the fastenting of the liability on the appellant-insurer, by the Tribunal, is justifiable?
4. As could be seen from the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the Tribunal in MVC Nos.639 of 2009 and 640 of 2009 has awarded compensation of Rs.2,04,600/- and Rs.2,47,600/- respectively. The only contention of the appellant is that the driver of the Tata Magic was not holding a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident. As could been seen from Ex.R-3- driving licence endorsement, the driver of the Tata Magic was having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the LMV(non-transport) which is valid for the period from 15.06.2009 till 14.06.2029. Only because there is no endorsement that the driver can drive transport vehicle, the learned counsel contends that the driver was not holding valid driving licence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case 7 of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in AIR 2017 Supreme Court 3668, at paragraphs 45 and 46 has observed as under:
"45. Transport vehicle has been defined in section 2(47) of the Act, to mean a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle. Public service vehicle has been defined in section 2(35) to mean any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward and includes a maxicab, a motor cab, contract carriage, and stage carriage. Goods carriage which is also a transport vehicle is defined in section 2(14) to mean a motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods. It was rightly submitted that a person holding licence to drive light motor vehicle registered for private use, who is driving a similar vehicle which is registered or insured, for the purpose of carrying passengers for hire or reward, would not require an endorsement as to drive a transport vehicle, as the same is not contemplated by the provisions of the Act. It was also rightly contended that there are several vehicles which can be used for private use as well as for carrying passengers for hire or reward. When a driver is authorised to drive a vehicle, he can drive it irrespective of the fact whether it is used for a private 8 purpose or for purpose of hire or reward or for carrying the goods in the said vehicle. It is what is intended by the provision of the Act, and the Amendment Act 54/1994.
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 28.3.2001. 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 of 1989, other provisions and also the forms which are in tune with the provisions. Even otherwise the forms never intended to exclude transport vehicles from the category of 'light motor vehicles' 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 9 discussed. Thus we answer the questions 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 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 28.3.2001 in the form.
(iii) The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act No.54/1994 w.e.f. 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.
10
(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 transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect."
5. The aforesaid decision makes it very clear that a person holding license to drive a light motor vehicle(non- transport) registered for a private use can drive a similar type vehicle of such class without there being any separate endorsement to that effect, he is also authorized to drive a transport vehicle. Even when the matter was referred to the larger bench, therein the Apex Court has observed that if a person has been given a licence to a particular type of vehicle, he cannot be said to have no licence to drive another type of vehicle which is of the same category but of a different type.
6. On going through Ex.R-3, it clearly goes to show the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a driving licence to drive LMV(non-transport) which is in 11 currency. Under such facts and circumstances and in view the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above said decision, it can be held that the driver of the Tata Magic is entitled to drive the vehicle in question. In that light, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant does not stand to reason and the same is liable to be rejected.
In view of the above said facts and circumstances, the appeals being devoid of merit are liable to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed by confirming the judgment and awards dated 23.09.2010 passed by the Additional MACT and Fast Track Court-I, Koppal, in MVC Nos.639 and 640 of 2009.
Registry is directed to draw the awards accordingly and transfer the amount in deposit to the jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE Kmv