Yellanti Mallem Kondaiah vs M.Venkateswarlu
2023 Latest Caselaw 4480 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                    M.A.C.M.A.No.2567 of 2013


JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 07.09.2009 on the file

of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum-I Additional District Judge,

Nellore, passed in M.V.O.P.No.91 of 2006, whereby the Tribunal

partly allowed the claim of claimant against the first respondent, the

instant appeal is preferred by the appellant-claimant for

enhancement of compensation amount.

2. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will

be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application.

3. The claimant filed a Claim Petition under section 166 of Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents praying the Tribunal to

award an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation for the

injuries sustained by him in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on

11.07.2004.

4. Facts germane to dispose of this appeal may be briefly stated

as follows:

                                    2                           VGKRJ
                                                   MACMA 2567 of 2013

On 11.07.2004 the petitioner went to Rapur to see the Vastu

of the house of one Srinivasulu, after completion of his work, he

boarded an auto bearing No.AP26 W 3383, hereinafter referred to

as 'offending vehicle', to go to his house, when the auto reached

near Yagarla center, at about 2.00 p.m., the driver of the offending

vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high

speed and lost control over the vehicle, due to that the auto hit the

canal bund, resulting which, the petitioner sustained grievous

injuries.

5. The first respondent remained exparte. The second

respondent filed counter denying the claim of the claimant and

contended that the claimant is not entitled any compensation and

the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the

claimant.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the

following issues:

i. Whether the pleaded accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the auto 3 VGKRJ MACMA 2567 of 2013

rickshaw bearing No.AP 26W 3383 by its driver and whether it resulted injuries to the petitioner? ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

iii. To what relief?

7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf

of the petitioner, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A6

and Ex.C1 were marked. None were examined on behalf of

respondents, however, Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 were marked.

8. At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the

evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal

has given a finding that the accident was occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle and the Tribunal

granted an amount of Rs.66,500/- to the claimant towards

compensation from the respondent No.1 and claim against the

respondent No.2/Insurance Company is dismissed. Aggrieved

against the exoneration of the Insurance Company from the liability

of payment of the compensation amount and for enhancement of 4 VGKRJ MACMA 2567 of 2013

compensation amount, the appellant/petitioner preferred the present

appeal.

9. Heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the

record.

10. Now, the point for consideration is:

      Whether     the   Order     of    Tribunal   needs     any
      interference? If so, to what extent?


11.   POINT :-

Though the appeal has been filed on the ground of

enhancement of compensation, the learned counsel for appellant

confined his argument only to the liability not fastened on the

Insurance Company for payment of compensation and for

exoneration of Insurance Company for payment of compensation to

the claimant.

12. On appreciation of entire evidence on record coupled with

Ex.A1 attested copy of First Information Report and Ex.A3 attested

copy of charge sheet the Tribunal rightly came to conclusion that the

accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of 5 VGKRJ MACMA 2567 of 2013

the driver of the offending vehicle. I do not find any legal flaw or

infirmity in the said finding given by the Tribunal.

13. As per Ex.A2 attested copy of wound certificate, the claimant/

injured sustained 6 injuries. As per the evidence of PW2,

Dr.K.Balakondaiah, who treated the petitioner, the claimant was

admitted in the hospital on 12.07.2004 and he is suffering from 7

injuries and he conducted surgery for one injury and the said injury

is grievous in nature and the injured was discharged on 24.07.2004

from the hospital. Therefore, the petitioner/ injured has been as an

inpatient in the hospital for a period of 12 days. On considering

Ex.A2 copy of wound certificate coupled with the evidence of PW2,

the Tribunal rightly awarded an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards pain

and suffering. On considering the Ex.A4 bunch of medical bills

coupled with the evidence of PW2, the Tribunal rightly awarded an

amount of Rs.18,500/- towards medical expenses. The Tribunal

also awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of income for

two months @ Rs.2,500/- per month. Since the petitioner sustained

7 injuries and he was hospitalized for a period of 12 days as

inpatient, the said amount of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of income is 6 VGKRJ MACMA 2567 of 2013

quite reasonable and there is no need to interfere with the said

finding given by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also awarded an amount

of Rs.3,000/- towards incidental expenses and further complications

likely to come. Since the petitioner sustained 7 injuries, the said

amount of Rs.3,000/- awarded under the said head is quite just and

reasonable in the present case.

14. As seen from the material on record and Ex.B1 policy, it

clearly goes to show that the offending vehicle is insured with the

second respondent Insurance Company and the policy is in force.

The second respondent produced Ex.B2 extract of driving licence of

driver of offending vehicle. As per Ex.B2, the driver Nagaraju was

having driving licence to drive auto rickshaw non-transport. As per

Ex.B2, the driver of offending vehicle can only drive non-transport

auto. The Tribunal came to conclusion that in the present case, he

was found driving a passenger auto, to drive a passenger auto, he

must have badge and he must have transport driving licence, but

the driver of the offending vehicle is not having transport

endorsement on his driving licence.

                                            7                                 VGKRJ
                                                              MACMA 2567 of 2013

15. Learned counsel for the second respondent would submit that

the offending vehicle is an Auto i.e., transport vehicle and the driver

of the offending vehicle is having non-transport driving licence and

the policy is in force. As per the material on record, the driver of the

first respondent had no transport driving licence of auto and he

possessed non-transport driving licence of auto only. The material

on record reveals that the offending vehicle is Light Motor Vehicle

transport and the driver of the offending vehicle possessed the

driving licence of Light Motor Vehicle non-transport and the

transport endorsement is not there on the driving licence of the

driver of the offending vehicle. No doubt the offending vehicle is a

light Motor Vehicle transport, but the driving skills of transport Light

Motor Vehicle and non-transport Light Motor Vehicle are one and

the same.

16. In a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Mukund

Dewangan Vs. Oriental insurance Company Limited1 held that

(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

2017 LawSuit (SC) 735 8 VGKRJ MACMA 2567 of 2013

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.

(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 9 VGKRJ MACMA 2567 of 2013

vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect.

Therefore, in view of the above decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India, the driving licence of driver of 1 st

respondent is sufficient to drive the crime vehicle/auto. Therefore,

objection taken by the 2nd respondent/ Insurance Company cannot

be accepted. Accordingly, the driver of first respondent is having

valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle/ auto

on the date of accident. Since the offending vehicle is insured with

the second respondent/ Insurance Company under Ex.B1 policy, the

second respondent is directed to pay the compensation amount to

the claimant.

17. In the result, this appeal is disposed of, modifying the order

dated 07.09.2009 passed in MVOP No.91/2006 on the file of the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge,

Nellore. The 2nd respondent/ Insurance Company is directed to

deposit the compensation amount of Rs.66,500/- with interest @7.5%

p.a., as ordered by the Tribunal, within two months from the date of

this judgment, before the Tribunal. After depositing the 10 VGKRJ MACMA 2567 of 2013

compensation amount along with accrued interest thereon, the

petitioner is entitled to withdraw the same. There shall be no order

as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall

stand closed.

________________________________ V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J Dated: 25.09.2023.

sj
                           11                          VGKRJ
                                          MACMA 2567 of 2013

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A.No.2567 of 2013

25.09.2023

sj