The Branch Manager vs Parashuram S/O Mallappa Chigari
2022 Latest Caselaw 6005 Kant

                              1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   KALABURAGI BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

                          BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

               MFA No.202004/2014 (MV)

Between:
The Branch Manager,
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
R/o : Bidari Complex, 1st Floor,
S.S.Front, Bijapur-586 101.
(Now represented by its
Authorised Signatory)
                                         ... Appellant
(By Smt. Preeti Patil Melkundi, Advocate)
And:

1.     Parashuram S/o
       Mallappa Chigari,
       Age: 32 years,
       Occ: Coolie,
       R/o: Hittanalli,
       Tq: Dist: Bijapur-586 101.
2.     Nazimabegum W/o
       Abdulhameed Chikalli,
       Age: Major, Occ: Owner of
       Tom Tom vehicle,
       R/o Opp: Golgumbaz Compound,
       W.No.19, Station Road,
       Bijapur-586 101.
                                       ... Respondents
(By Sri. S.S.Mamadapur, Advocate for R1;
By Sri. Koujalagi C. L, Advocate for R2)
                                    2




     This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
173(1) of the M.V. Act praying to set aside the impugned
judgment and award dated 23.09.2014 in MVC
No.1647/2012 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge
and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.V at Bijapur, with
exemplary costs and in the interest of justice and equity,

      This appeal coming on for Final Hearing, 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) is filed by the Insurance Company

challenging the judgment and award dated

23.09.2012 passed in MVC No.1647/2012 by the

Principal Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal No.V at Bijapur.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are

referred to as per their ranking before the Claims

Tribunal. Appellant herein is respondent No.2-

Insurance Company and respondent No.1 herein is the

petitioner-claimant and respondent No.2 herein is the

respondent No.1-owner, before the Tribunal.

3. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 0.7.07.2002 at about 6.030

p.m. in Kanaka Nagar at Managuli, petitioner was

returning to his house after completion of coolie work

on extreme end of road. At that time, driver of Tom

Tom vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-28-7551 came from

B.Bagewadi side in a rash and negligent manner,

dashed against him as a result of which he fell down

and sustained injuries to right leg and other parts of

the body. He was shifted to Matashree Hospital,

Bijapur for treatment as an inpatient, was operated

for the injuries and thereafter took follow up

treatment. The petitioner claimed that he was aged

30 years, a coolie by profession, earning Rs.6,000/-

p.m. and due to the said accident he is unable to do

his day-to-day activities and suffered permanent

disability. Hence, he filed the claim petition against

the insurer and owner of the offending vehicle

claiming compensation.

The owner of the offending vehicle though

appeared through the counsel has not filed any

written statement.

The insurer of the offending vehicle filed written

statement denying the age, occupation, income,

nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and

claimed that the compensation sought for by the

claimant is highly exorbitant. It is further contended

that the claimant has contributed 95% of negligence

for occurrence of the accident and prayed to dismiss

the claim petition.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the

Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter

recorded evidence.

In order to prove the case, the

petitioner/claimant examined himself as PW-1 and got

marked the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P7.

On behalf of respondent No.2-Insurance

Company, official of respondent No.2 was examined

as RW.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.R1 to

R3.

The Tribunal after recoding the evidence and

considering the material on record allowed the claim

petition in part and awarded compensation of

Rs.85,900/- and further held that respondent No.1

and 2 being the owner and Insurance Company are

jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the

petitioner and directed respondent No.2-Insurance

Company to deposit the compensation amount before

the Tribunal.

Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award

passed by the Tribunal, respondent No.2-Insurance

Company has filed the present appeal challenging the

liability.

4. Heard learned counsel for the claimant,

learned Senior Member of The Bar representing the

owner and the learned counsel for Insurance

Company.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant -

Insurance Company submits that the driver of the

offending vehicle was holding light motor vehicle

licence and was driving a transport vehicle. She

further submits that the driver of the offending vehicle

was not possessing valid and effective driving licence

as on the date of accident and therefore, the Tribunal

has committed an error in saddling the liability on the

owner of the offending vehicle. Hence, on these

grounds prays to dismiss the appeal.

6. Per contra the learned counsel for the

clamant submits that admittedly the driver of the

offending vehicle was possessing licence to drive light

motor vehicle and in view of the judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund

Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company

Limited reported in (2017)14 SCC 663 wherein it is

held that the driver of the offending vehicle is entitled

to drive a transport vehicle without endorsement and

therefore submits that the Tribunal was justified in

saddling the liability jointly and severally on the owner

and the Insurance Company. Hence, prays to dismiss

the appeal filed by the Insurance Company.

7. Perused the records and considered the

submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

8. The point that arises for consideration is

with regard to liability.

9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner -

claimant met with an accident and sustained injuries

in the said accident. In order prove the accident, the

petitioner has produced copy of charge sheet which is

marked as Ex.P5. Ex.P5 discloses that the accident

occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the

driver of the offending vehicle.

10. Insofar as liability is concerned, it is the

case of the appellant -Insurance Company that the

driver of the offending vehicle was possessing light

motor vehicle licence and as per Ex.P3 wherein it

shows that the driver of the offending vehicle was

driving a transport vehicle. The said issue has already

been considered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental

Insurance Company Limited reported in (2017)14

SCC 663, wherein it is held that, 'a person possessing

licence to drive light motor vehicle is competent to

drive transport vehicle and further held that no

further endorsement is required to drive the transport

vehicle. Admittedly in the present case the driver was

holding a light motor vehicle licence and he was

competent to drive a transport vehicle. The Tribunal

was justified in saddling the liability on the Insurance

Company- respondent No.2.

11. In view of the above discussion, I proceed

to pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and

award dated 23.09.2014 passed by the Tribunal in

MVC No.1647/2012 is confirmed.

The amount in deposit may be transmitted to the

tribunal.

Sd/-

JUDGE

rs