Sri.Appanna Anappa Patil vs Shri.Ramesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 5776 Kant

                          1


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   DHARWAD BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                      PRESENT

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV

                         AND

        THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. RACHAIAH


             M.F.A. NO.102559/2016 (MV)

BETWEEN

SRI.APPANNA ANAPPA PATIL,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: LAXMI GALLI, HALGA,
TQ: DIST: BELAGAVI-590009.
                                       .....APPELLANT
(BY SRI HARISH S MAIGUR, ADV.)

AND

1.     SHRI.RAMESH GOPAL MANGANNAVAR,
       AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, NOW NIL,
       R/O: SHINDOLLI,
       TQ: DIST: BELAGAVI-590025.

2.   THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
     IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
     SHIKSHAK BHAVAN, COLLEGE ROAD,
     BELAGAVI-590002.
                                    .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAVINDRA R. MANE, ADV. FOR R-2
R1 SERVED)
                               2


      THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:20.06.2016
PASSED IN MVC NO.1950/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE X
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND
MEMBER     ADDITIONAL   MOTOR    ACCIDENT   CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION
OF RS.7,48,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6%
P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITIONS TILL ITS PAYMENT
FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                        JUDGMENT

The owner of the vehicle has filed the appeal

assailing the order of the Tribunal.

2. The facts as made out are that on 01.09.2015,

a tractor rotator bearing No.KA-22/T-5724 was engaged in

removing waste grass from the field of the petitioner and

when the driver was cleaning and removing waste grass,

the grass got stuck in the rotator and the driver requested

the claimant to remove the grass from the tractor rotator.

In the meanwhile, the tractor driver without observing the

claimant cleaning the grass, reversed the vehicle. Due to

which, the claimant was caught under the tractor rotator

and sustained multiple fracture and other injuries. It is

submitted that he was admitted to Vijaya Hospital,

Belagavi and claimant's right leg was amputed above the

knee and implants were inserted to the left leg after the

operation. Necessary claim was made out and the Tribunal

has allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation

of Rs.7,48,000/- after deducting interim compensation

payable with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition

till date of the order. However, it is to be noted that the

liability was fastened on the owner of the tractor. The said

award has been challenged by the owner of the tractor

while submitting that the conclusion of the Tribunal at

paragraph 12 is erroneous and requires to be set aside in

light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of

Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company

Limited reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663.

3. It is submitted that the Apex Court has clearly

declared the correct position of law and accordingly finding

of the Tribunal requires to be set aside insofar as the

Tribunal has held that there was no endorsement on the

licence authorizing the driver to drive the tractor rotator

which is a transport vehicle.

4. Taking note of the observations of the Apex

Court at paragraph 46, it is clear that the driver of the

tractor rotator did not require any other endorsement in

the licence and the fact that he had licence to drive a light

motor vehicle was sufficient to driver the tractor rotator.

5. In light of the law laid down in Mukund

Dewangan's case, contention of the appellant requires to

be accepted and as admittedly and undisputedly the driver

had licence to drive light motor vehicle, the said licence

was sufficient to drive the tractor rotator also. Further, it

is also noticed that there is necessary endorsement in the

licence enabling the driver to drive a transport vehicle also.

Accordingly, the finding of the Tribunal to the extent that

the driver of the vehicle was not authorized to drive the

tractor rotator requires to be set aside and the insurer is to

be fastened with liability. Accordingly, the sole liability

fastened on the owner of the vehicle is set aside and the

insurer and the owner are held jointly and severally liable.

6. With such finding, the appeal is partly allowed

and the order of the Tribunal stands partially modified. The

insurer/respondent No.2 is to bear the liability.

7. The statutory deposit is directed to be

refunded to the appellant.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

Naa