Karnataka High Court
Reliance Insurance Company ... vs Suheb @ Shohib on 27 January, 2021
Author: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.9910 OF 2013(MV)
C/W
MFA Nos.9912 OF 2013(MV), 9913 OF 2013(MV)
& 9914 OF 2013(MV)
IN MFA 9910/2013
BETWEEN:
RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
I FLOOR, SLV TOWERS
PARVATHINAGAR, BELLARY
KNOWN AS RELIANCE GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
HAVING REGIONAL OFFICE AT
NO. 28, 5TH FLOOR, EAST WING
CENTENARY BUILDING, M G ROAD
BANGALORE-560001
BY ITS MANAGER (LEGAL)
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. LINGARAJU H S., ADV.)
AND
1. SUHEB @ SHOHIB
NOW AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
S/O G M IBRAHIM SAHEB
(SINCE MINOR AT THE TIME OF
2
FILING THE CLAIM PETITION
REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER
SRI G M IBRAHIM SAHEB
BEFORE THE MACT)
R/O "SUHANA MANZIL"
GOLIHOLE VILLAGE
KUNDAPURA TALUK-576201.
2. M B SATHYANARAYANA SHETTY
NOW AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
S/O M B VENKATARAMANA SHETTY
R/O MAIN ROAD, MOKA POST
BELLARY-583101.
3. SHEKAR POOJARY
NOW AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
S/O SHEENA POOJARY
R/O GOYADI MANE
BIJIANAMAKKI
KALTHODU VILLAGE
KUNDAPURA TALUK-576201
4. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD
BRANCH OFFICE GANESH MAHAL
MAIN ROAD
KUNDAPURA-576201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ V SABARAD, ADV. FOR R2:
SMT. MANJUALA N TEJASWI, ADV. FOR R4:
R1 & R3 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:22.08.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.1146/2008
3
ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI,
KUNDAPURA AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF
RS.1,73,450/ WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE
DATE OF PETITION TILL PAYMENT.
IN MFA 9912/2013
BETWEEN
RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
I FLOOR, SLV TOWERS, PARVATHINAGAR
BELLARY, KNOWN AS
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED
HAVING REGIONAL OFFICE
AT NO.28, 5TH FLOOR
EAST WING, CENTENARY BUILDING
M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001
BY ITS MANAGER (LEGAL).
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. LINGARAJ H S., ADV.)
AND
1. MUDASIR
NOW AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
S/O N.M.JEELANI
R/O "MOULANA MANZIL"
NAGOOR, KIRIMANJESHWARA VILLAGE
KUNDAPURA TALUK-576201.
2. M.B.SATHYANARAYANA SHETTY
NOW AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
S/O M.B.VENLATARAMANA SHETTY
4
R/AT MAIN ROAD, MOKA POST
BELLARY-583101.
3. SHEKAR POOJARY
NOW AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
S/O SHEENA POOJARY
R/O GOYADI MANE, BIJJANAMAKKI
KALTHODU VILLAGE
KUNDAPURA TALUK-576 201.
4. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
BRANCH OFFICE, GANESH MAHAL
MAIN ROAD
KUNDAPURA-576201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHESH SHETTY, ADV. FOR R1:
SRI. BASAVARAJ S SABARAD, ADV. FOR R2:
SMT. MANJULA N TEJASWI, ADV. FOR R4:
R3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION
173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED:22.08.2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1147/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL
MACT, UDUPI, KUNDAPURA AWARDING A
COMPENSATION OF RS.3,25,300/ WITH INTEREST @
ON RS.3,15,300/- @6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL PAYMENT.
IN MFA 9913/2013
BETWEEN
RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
5
I FLOOR, SLV TOWERS, PARVATHINAGAR
BELLARY KNOWN AS RELIANCE
GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
HAVING REGIONAL OFFICE
AT NO 28, 5TH FLOOR
EAST WING, CENTENARY BUILDING
M G ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001
BY ITS MANAGER (LEGAL)
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. LINGARAJ H S., ADV.)
AND
1. SAIF
NOW AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS
S/O SYYEED
SINCE MINOR
REPRESENTED BY HIS GUARDIAN
SMT RUZEENA W/O SAYYED
R/O "NEERAN MANZIL"
GOLIHOLE VILLAGE
KUNDAPURA TALUK 576 201.
2. M B SATHYANARAYANA SHETTY
NOW AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
S/O M B VENKATARAMANA SHETTY
R/AT MAIN ROAD, MOKA POST
BELLARY 583 101.
3. SHEKAR POOJARY
NOW AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
S/O SHEENA POOJARY
R/O GOYADI MANE, BIJIANAMAKKI
KALTHODU VILLAGE
KUNDAPURA TALUK 576 201
6
4. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE, GANESH MAHAL
MAIN RAOD,
KUNDAPURA 576 201
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHESH SHETTY, ADV. FOR R1:
SRI. BASAVARAJ V SABARAD, ADV.FOR R2:
SMT. MANJULA N TEJASWI, ADV.FOR R4:
R3 SERVEDAND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:22.08.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.1150/2008
ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI,
KUNDAPURA AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF
RS.15,000/ WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE
DATE OF PETITION TILL PAYMENT.
IN MFA 9914/2013
BETWEEN
RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
I FLOOR SLV TOWERS, PARVATHINAGAR
BELLARY KNOWN AS RELIANCE
GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
HAVING REGIONAL OFFICE
AT NO 28 5TH FLOOR,
EAST WING, CENTENARY BUILDING
M G ROAD, BANGALROE 560 001
BY ITS MANAGER (LEGAL)
...APPELLANT
7
(BY SRI.LINGARAJ H S., ADV.)
AND
1. SHEKAR POOJARY
NOW AGED ABOUT 37 EYARS
S/O SHEENA POOJARY
R/O GOYADI MANE, BIJAMAKKI
KALTHODU VILLAGE
KUNDAPURA TALUK 576 201
2. M B SATHYANARAYANA SHETTY
NOW AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
S/O M B VENMKATARAMANA SHETTY
R/AT MAIN ROAD MOKA POST
BELLARY 583 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.BASAVARAJ V SABARAD, ADV. FOR R:
R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION
173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED:22.08.2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1146/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL
MACT, UDUPI, KUNDAPURA AWARDING A
COMPENSATION OF RS.25,000/- WITH INTEREST @
6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL PAYMENT.
8
THESE MFAs COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
These appeals under Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act',
for short) have been filed by the Insurance Company
being aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.8.2013
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeals
briefly stated are that on 8.6.2008, the claimants
were traveling in the auto rickshaw as inmates near
Tonde Hitlu, Yalajith, Kundapura Taluk, at that time,
Tempo Trax bearing registration No.KA-34-A-339
being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a
rash and negligent manner, dashed to the vehicle in
which the claimants were traveling. As a result of the
aforesaid accident, the claimants sustained grievous
injuries and were hospitalized.
3. The claimants filed petitions under Section
166 of the Act seeking compensation. It was pleaded
that they 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 notices, the respondent No.1
owner of tempo appeared through counsel and filed
written statement in which the averments made in the
petition were denied. It was pleaded that the petition
itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. It was
further pleaded that the accident was due to the rash
and negligent driving of the auto rickshaw by its
driver. The policy is in force and respondent no.2 is
liable to pay compensation. Hence, he sought for
dismissal of the petition.
The respondent No.2, insurer of tempo appeared
through counsel and filed written statement in which
the averments made in the petition were denied. It
was pleaded that the petition itself is false and
frivolous in the eye of law. It was further pleaded that
the accident was due to the rash and negligent riding
of the auto rickshaw by its driver. The driver of the
tempo did not have valid driving licence as on the
date of the accident. The petitions are bad for non-
joinder of necessary parties. The liability is subject to
terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, he sought
for dismissal of the petition.
The respondent No.4, insurer of auto rickshaw
appeared through counsel and filed written statement
in which the averments made in the petition were
denied. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false
and frivolous in the eye of law. It was further pleaded
that the accident was solely due to the rash and
negligent driving of the tempo by its driver. The
driver of the auto rickshaw did not have valid driving
licence as on the date of the accident. The liability is
subject to terms and conditions of the policy. Hence,
he sought for dismissal of the petition.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,
the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter
recorded the evidence. The Claims Tribunal, by the
impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident
took place on account of rash and negligent driving of
the tempo by its driver, as a result of which, the
claimants sustained injuries and directed the insurer
of tempo to deposit the compensation amount along
with interest in all the cases. Being aggrieved, these
appeals have been filed.
6. The learned counsel for the Insurance
Company has contended that as on the date of the
accident, the driver of the Tempo Trax was having
licence to drive LMV (Non-transport) valid from
9.3.1998 to 8.3.2018 and he was also having licence
to drive transport vehicle valid from 11.12.2011 to
10.12.2014. The accident has occurred on 8.6.2008.
As on the date of the accident, the driver of the
offending vehicle was not having driving licence to
drive the transport vehicle, since the vehicle involved
in the accident is a transport commercial vehicle. The
insured has violated the terms and conditions of the
policy. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to
pay compensation. Hence, he prays for allowing the
appeals.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent
No.2, owner of Tempo Trax has contended that as on
the date of the accident, the driver of the Tempo Trax
was having licence to drive LMV (non-transport) valid
from 9.3.1998 to 8.3.2018 and he was driving the
goods vehicle at the time of the accident. In support
of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of
the Apex Court in the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN
vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663, wherein it is held
that a person 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 was less than 7500 kgs. Therefore, the
Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation.
The Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability on the
insurer of the tempo trax. Hence, he prays for
allowing the appeals.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the records.
9. It is not in dispute that the accident has
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
offending vehicle by its driver.
The Insurance Company has produced Ex.R-4,
history sheet for the drivers issued by the licencing
authority, RTO, Bellary. It is very clear from the said
document that the driver of the tempo was having
driving licence to drive motor vehicle other than
transport vehicle valid from 9.3.1998 to 8.3.2018 and
licence to drive transport vehicle valid from
11.12.2011 to 10.12.2014. The accident has occurred
on 8.6.2008. Therefore, it is clear that as on the date
of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was
having driving licence to drive LMV (Non-transport).
LMV means a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross
vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or
tractor or road roller, the unladen weight of any of
which, does not exceed 7500 kgs. The Apex Court in
the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN (supra), has held
that driver holding driving licence to drive LMV (non-
transport) can also drive transport vehicle, the
unladen weight of which does not exceed 7500 kgs.
In view of the above said decision of the Apex
Court, I am of the opinion that the driver of the tempo
trax was having valid driving licence as on the date of
accident. Accordingly, there is no error in the finding
of the Tribunal and hence, the same is confirmed.
10. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.
The amount in deposit is ordered to be
transferred to the Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DM
