Karnataka High Court
Sri S Harish vs Smt N Syamala on 9 December, 2021
Bench: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.5994 OF 2016(MV)
BETWEEN:
SRI S HARISH
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
S/O SRI B G SIDDAGANGAIAH
R/AT NO. 385, SRIRANGA NILAYA
HEROHALLI, SUNKADAKATTE
MAGADI ROAD
VISHWANEEDAM POST
BANGALORE - 560 091.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ANUP SEETHA RAMA RAO, ADV. FOR
SRI. SEETHA RAMA RAO B C., ADV.)
AND
1. SMT N SYAMALA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
W/O LATE N VENKATARAMANA.
2. SMT. N NAGAMMA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
W/O LATE VENKATA REDDY.
2
BOTH ARE R/AT NO. 3-40
CHINTHA MAKULAPALLI
NADIMIKHANDRIGA GURRAMKONDA
CHERIOPALLE, CHITTOOR
ANDHRA PRADESH - 517 305.
3. RELIANCE GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
TP CLAIM HUB, 5TH FLOOR
CENTURY BUILDING, EAST WING
M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K V SHYAMA PRASADA, ADV. FOR R2:
SRI. H.C. BETSUR, ADV. FOR R3:
R1 SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:24.2.216 PASSED IN MVC NO.1094/2014 ON
THE FILE OF THE 9TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES
JUDGE, 34TH ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
MEMBER, MACT-7, BENGALURU, AWARDING A
COMPENSATION OF RS.14,05,512/- WITH INTEREST
@ 8% P.A FROM THE DTE OF PETITION TILL THE
DATE OF PAYMENT.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act',
for short) has been filed by the owner of the of offending
vehicle being aggrieved by the judgment dated
24.2.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Bangalore in MVC 1094/2014.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 16.11.2013, the claimant was
proceeding in quails car bearing registration No.KA-02-
C-1526 from Town Hall to proceed towards Mysore
Circle, near flyover, at that time, the driver of the car
drove the same at a high speed and in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed to the name board of Arch
to the cement pillar. As a result of the aforesaid
accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and
was hospitalized.
3. The claimant filed a petition under Section
166 of the Act seeking compensation. It was pleaded
that he spent huge amount towards medical expenses,
conveyance, etc. It was further pleaded that the
accident occurred purely on account of the rash and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.
4. On service of notice, the respondents
appeared through counsel and filed written statements
in which the averments made in the petition were
denied.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,
the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter
recorded the evidence. The claimant himself was
examined as PW-1 and got exhibited documents namely
Ex.P1 to Ex.P13. On behalf of the respondents, one
witness was examined as RW-1 and got exhibited
documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R2. The Claims Tribunal,
by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the
accident took place on account of rash and negligent
driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, as a result
of which, the claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal
further held that the claimant is entitled to a
compensation of Rs.14,05,512/- along with interest at
the rate of 8% p.a. and directed the owner of the
offending vehicle to deposit the compensation amount
along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has
been filed.
6. The learned counsel for the owner of the
offending vehicle has contended that as on the date of
accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was having
valid driving licence and the owner of the offending
vehicle was unable to produce the same before the
Tribunal. The Tribunal has given a finding that the driver
of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving
licence as on the date of accident and fastened the
liability on the owner of the offending vehicle. The
offending vehicle is covered with valid insurance policy.
Hence, the Insurance Company is liable to pay
compensation.
In this appeal, an application is filed for production
of additional document i.e., driving licence of the driver
of the offending vehicle.
As per the said driving licence, as on the date of
accident the driver of the offending vehicle was having
driving licence to drive LMV (Non-transport) but he was
driving the transport vehicle at the time of the accident.
In view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of
MUKUND DEWANGAN vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663,
even though if a person is holding driving licence to
drive LMV (Non-Transport) can also drive transport
vehicle, the unladen weight of which does not exceed
7500 kgs. The unladen weight of the vehicle involved in
the accident is less than 7500 kgs. Therefore, the
Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation.
Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for
the Insurance Company has contended that even though
the owner of the offending vehicle was a party before
the Tribunal, he has not produced the driving licence of
the driver. Since the insured has violated the policy
conditions, the Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability
on the owner of the offending vehicle.
Even as per the driving licence produced by way of
additional document before this Court, the driver of the
offending vehicle was having driving licence to drive LMV
(Non-transport) but he was driving the transport vehicle
at the time of the accident. Since the insured has
violated the policy conditions, the Insurance Company is
not liable to pay compensation. Hence, he sought for
dismissal of the appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the records.
9. It is not in dispute that the claimant has
sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred
due to rash and negligent driving of the offending
vehicle by its driver. One Mr.Shivakumar.G. s/o
Guddaiah was driving the offending vehicle as on the
date of accident. The police have filed charge sheet
against him.
10. The appellant-owner of the offending vehicle
has filed an application before this court for production
of additional documents i.e., driving licence and the
same is allowed. The driving licence of the driver of the
offending vehicle produced as additional document is
taken on record.
11. As per the driving licence, it stands in the
name of Mr.Shivakumar.G. s/o Guddaiah and it is valid
from 23.10.2008 to 22.10.2028. The date of accident is
16.11.2013. Hence, as on the date of the accident, the
driving licence was valid.
Further, the driver of the offending vehicle was
having driving licence to drive LMV (Non-transport) but
he was driving transport vehicle as on the date of
accident. The Apex Court in the case of MUKUND
DEWANGAN (supra), has held that a person holding
driving licence to drive LMV (Non-transport) can also
drive transport vehicle, wherein the unladen weight of
said vehicle does not exceed 7500 kgs.
In the case on hand, the unladen weight of the
vehicle involved in the accident is less than 7500 kgs.
Therefore, in view of the above said decision of the Apex
Court, I am of the opinion that the driver of the
offending vehicle was having valid driving licence as on
the date of the accident. Hence, the Insurance Company
is liable to pay compensation to the claimant.
12. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The
judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.
In view of the Division Bench decision of this in the
case of Ms.Joyeeta Bose and others -v-
Venkateshan.V and others (MFA 5896/2018 and
connected matters disposed of on 24.8.2020), the
interest granted by the Tribunal at the rate of 8% p.a.
on the compensation amount is reduced to 6% p.a.
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
compensation amount along with interest @ 6% p.a.
from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date
of realization, within a period of six weeks from the date
of receipt of copy of this judgment.
The amount in deposit is ordered to be refunded to
the appellant after due verification.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DM
