Sri.P.Basavaraj vs Sri.Krishnappa
2021 Latest Caselaw 757 Kant

                         1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021

                      BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD

            MFA No.9067 OF 2013(MV)

BETWEEN:

SRI. P. BASAVARAJ
@ P. BASAVAN
S/O SUBRAMANI
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
RESIDING AT YARRA PET VILLAGE
DHARMAPURI TALUK & DISTRICT
TAMIL NADU.
                                    ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI.JAGADISH G KUMBAR, ADV. FOR
SRI. N.GOPALKRISHNA, ADV. )

AND

1.    SRI. KRISHNAPPA
      S/O VENKATASWAMAPPA
      MAJOR IN AGE
      RESIDING AT NO.23
      KOOTERI VILLGE
      SANITORIUM POST
      KOLAR TALUK & DISTRICT.

2.    M/S IFCO-TOKIYO
      GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
                            2



     NO.41, CRISTU COMPLEX
     2ND FLOOR, LAVELLE ROAD
     BANGALORE-560 001
     REP. BY ITS MANAGER.
                                      ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.D.S.SRIDHAR, ADV. FOR R2:
R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

    THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED: 27.02.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.7179/2010
ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSE
& XXVI     ACMM, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

     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 claimant being

aggrieved by the judgment dated 27.02.2013 passed

by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 27.05.2010 at about 1.30

p.m., the claimant was proceeding on his motorcycle

bearing registration No.TN-38/AB-8059 along with

pillion rider towards Kolar side, at that time, Goods

Tempo bearing Reg.No.KA-03/C-1381 being driven by

its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent

manner, dashed against the motorcycle of the

claimant. 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 on the ground that he was employed as

stone cutter with one Bayyanna of Bhuvanahalli and

was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. It was pleaded

that he also 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 respondent Nos.1

and 2 appeared through their respective counsel and

filed separate objection statements in which the

averments made in the petition were denied. It was

pleaded by the respondent No.1 that the Tempo

bearing Reg.No.KA-03/C-1381 was insured with

respondent No.2 and policy was in force as on the

date of accident. Hence, he sought for dismissal of

the petition.

It was pleaded by the respondent No.2 that

issuance of policy in respect of Goods Tempo bearing

Reg.No.KA-03/C-1381 has been admitted and it was

in force as on the date of accident. The driver of the

offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective

driving licence to drive the same as on the date of

accident. 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 claimant himself was

examined as PW-1 and Dr.Vijay Kumar as PW-2 and

got exhibited 10 documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P10.

On behalf of the respondents, Legal executive of

Insurance Company was examined as RW-1 and got

exhibited 2 documents namely Ex.R1 and 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.2,21,690/- along with

interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the

respondent No.1/RC 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 claimant has

raised the following contentions.

Firstly, at the time of accident driver of the

offending vehicle was having valid and effective D.L.

to drive LMV non-transport vehicle, but he was driving

transport vehicle. But in view of the law laid down by

the Apex Court in the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN

vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663, wherein it is that

licence to drive LMV non-transport includes licence to

drive transport vehicle, therefore, the Insurance

Company is liable to pay compensation.

Secondly, due to the accident he has suffered

grievous injuries, the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal under the head of 'pain and sufferings' is on

the lower side. Hence, he sought for allowing the

appeal.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for

the Insurance Company has raised the following

contentions.

Firstly, as on the date of accident, driver of the

offending vehicle was having driving licence to drive

LMV non-transport vehicle only, but he was driving the

transport vehicle. Since the insured has violated

policy conditions, the Tribunal has rightly fastened

liability on the insured.

Secondly, the Tribunal after considering evidence

of the parties and materials available on record has

rightly awarded just and reasonable compensation.

Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties

and perused judgment and award of the Tribunal and

original records.

9. It is not in dispute that the claimant has

suffered injuries in a road traffic accident occurred on

27.05.2010 due to rash and negligent driving of the

Goods Tempo bearing Reg.No.KA-03/C-1381 by its

driver. At the time of accident, driver of the offending

vehicle was having valid and effective DL to drive LMV

non-transport vehicle, but he was driving the

transport vehicle. In view of the law laid down by the

Apex Court in the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN

(supra), wherein it is held that a person having

driving licence to drive LMV (non-transport) can also

drive transport vehicle. In view of the said decision, I

am of the opinion that driver of the offending vehicle

was having valid driving licence as on the date of

accident. Accordingly, finding of the Tribunal in

respect of liability is concerned, the same is modified

and it is held that Insurance Company is liable to pay

compensation to the claimant.

10. In respect of quantum of compensation is

concerned, the Tribunal after considering evidence of

the parties, and evidence of Dr.Vijay Kumar-PW3,

considering wound certificate-Ex.P3 and other

documents, has awarded just and reasonable

compensation.

The compensation of Rs.2,21,690/- awarded by

the Tribunal is affirmed.

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit

above said compensation amount along with interest

at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of

realization within a period of four weeks from the date

of receipt of copy of this judgment excluding interest

for the compensation awarded under the head of

'future medical expenses'.

To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the

Claims Tribunal is modified.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Mkm