The Divisional Manager vs Smt. Mahadevi W/O Ramappa ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3190 Kant

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                     DHARWAD BENCH

          DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2021
                          BEFORE
  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

                    MFA NO.25136/2010

BETWEEN:

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CLUB ROAD
BELGAUM. REP. BY ITS
ASSISTANT MANAGER
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE, SUMANGALA COMPLEX
II FLOOR, LAMINGTON ROAD,
HUBLI-580020.
                                               ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.: S C JAINAR, ADV.)

AND:
1.     SMT. MAHADEVI
       W/O RAMAPPA NINGASANI
       AGE:42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
       R/O: SIDDAPUR VILLAGE, TQ: JAMKHANDI,
       DIST: BAGALKOT.
2.     KUM. RACHAPPA
       S/O RAMAPPA NINGASANI
       AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
       R/O: SIDDAPUR VILLAGE,
       TQ: JAMKHANDI,
       DIST: BAGALKOT.
3.     KUM. BHIMAPPA
       S/O RAMAPPA NINGASANI
       AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
       SINCE MINOR, REP. BY NATURAL MOTHER
       AS M/G I.E, RESPDT. NO.1
                            2




4.   SHRI. KUTUBUDDIN
     S/O HAJISAB NADAF
     AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF LGV
     BEARING NO. KA-29/5242
     R/O: JAMKHANDI, TQ: JAMKHANDI,
     DIST: BAGALKOT.
                                          ....RESPONDENTS
(R1, R2 ARE SERVED, R3 IS MINOR REP. BY R1)

     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE M.V.
ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
02.08.2010 PASSED IN MVC NO.816/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE
MEMBER,     MACT-VI,    JAMKHANDI     AWARDING      THE
COMPENSATION OF RS.4,25,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE
RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.

     THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                       JUDGMENT

This is insurance company's appeal challenging

the judgment and award passed in MVC No.816/2008

dated 02.08.2010 by MACT-VI, Jamkhandi.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for

the appellant-insurance company.

3. The brief facts of the case are that, on

29.12.2007 when the deceased Ramappa was moving

on the bicycle towards Prabhulingeshwar Sugar

Factory, at that time a vehicle bearing registration

No.KA.29/5242 came in a high speed in a rash and

negligent manner and dashed to deceased Ramappa,

who was on his cycle from backside. Due to the said

accident, the said Ramappa died. The

claimants/respondents filed the petition under Section

166 of Motors Vehicle Act claiming compensation of

Rs.10.00 lakhs due to the death of Ramappa S/o.

Basappa Ningasani and the tribunal has granted a

compensation of Rs.4,25,000/- with interest @ 6%

p.a.

4. The owner and the insurance company

contested the claim petition. The owner admitted that

he is the owner of vehicle bearing registration

No.KA.29/5242 and it is insured with the Oriental

Insurance Company Ltd., The Insurance company

denied the contentions of the claimants and

specifically contended that the owner of the vehicle

bearing registration No.KA.29/5242 handed over the

vehicle to the person who is not having valid driving

licence to drive the vehicle involved in the accident as

on the date of accident and prayed to shift the liability

on the owner of the vehicle.

5. The tribunal has raised five issues. The

claimant No.1 came to be examined as PW1 and got

marked the documents as Ex.P1 to P10 and one

witness has been examined as PW2 on behalf of

claimants. The respondents did not lead any evidence

and the insurance company got marked the insurance

policy of the offending vehicle as Ex.R1 with the

consent of counsel for the claimant. The tribunal on

the basis of material available on record has awarded

a total compensation of Rs.4,25,000/- with interest @

6% p.a.,

6. The learned counsel for the appellant-

insurance company has contended that the driver of

the offending vehicle who is holding driving licence to

drive light motor vehicle and the offending vehicle is a

transport vehicle and therefore, he is not authorized

to drive the same. Therefore, the insurance company

is not liable to pay the compensation. He placed

reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the

case of New India Assurance Co.Ltd., V/s.

Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir and another (Civil

Appeal No.3496/2008) decided on 12.05.2008.

7. Having heard the arguments of the learned

counsel for the appellant, the following point would

arise for consideration:

1. Whether a driver holding driving licence to drive light motor vehicle is

authorized to drive a transport vehicle having unladen weight of 1610 kgs?

8. The answer to the above point is in the

affirmative for the following :

REASON

9. Learned counsel for the appellant has

contended that the driver of the offending vehicle is

holding driving licence to drive light motor vehicle and

its validity is 20 years and in the case of licence to

drive a transport vehicle will be effective for period of

three years. Whereas, any other vehicle it can be

issued or renewed for a period of 20 years and on that

point, he placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of Roshanben (supra).

Whether a person holding driving licence to drive light

motor vehicle is authorized to drive transport vehicle

came for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court

in the case of Mukund Dewangan V/s. Oriental

Insurance Company Ltd., reported in AIR 2017 SC

3668, wherein it is held as under :

"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 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.

(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."

10. Therefore, the driver holding a driving

licence to drive light motor vehicle is authorized to

drive a transport vehicle the unladen weight of which

does not exceed 7500 kgs. In the case on hand, the

unladen weight of the offending vehicle is 1610 kg.

Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for

the appellant that the driver holding driving licence to

drive light motor vehicle cannot drive the transport

vehicle, cannot be accepted. In the result, appeal is

liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed.

The amount in deposit is to be transmitted to the

Tribunal.

Sd/-

JUDGE MN S /