Karnataka High Court

M/S Reliance General Insurance ... vs R Srinivasan on 20 June, 2022

Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                         BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7952/2017 (MV-D)


BETWEEN:

M/S. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD.,
I FLOOR, MYSORE TRADE CENTER
OPP: KSRTC BUS STAND
MYSORE-1

NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER
M/S. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.28
5TH FLOOR, EAST WING
CENTENERY BUILDING
M.G.ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001
                                             ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI H.N.KESHAVA PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     R.SRINIVASAN
       S/O LATE G.V.RAMASWAMY
       NOW AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

2.     R. MANJULA
       D/O LATE G.V.RAMASWAMY
       NOW AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

3.     M.P. RAGHAVENDRA
       S/O R.PADMANABHAN
       NOW AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
                              2



     ALL ARE R/AT NO.101
     1ST STAGE, 5TH A MAIN ROAD
     6TH CROSS, BRINDAVAN EXTENSION
     MYSURU

4.   C.BASAVARAJU
     S/O CHIKKEGOWDA
     NOW AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
     R/AT C/O C.K.GANGADHAR
     NO.743, 11TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE
     SUBHASHNAGAR, HEBBAL
     MYSURU

5.   C.K.GANGADHAR
     S/O KALLEGOWDA
     NOW AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
     NO.743, 11TH 'B' CROSS, 1ST STAGE
     SUBHASHNAGAR, HEBBAL
     MYSURU
                                             ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. JAGAN MOHAN M.T., ADVOCATE
FOR R1 TO R3
R4 AND R5- SERVED)


     THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 03.08.2017
PASSED IN MVC No.546/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, ADDITIONAL COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MACT,
MYSURU,     AS   A   PRESIDING   OFFICER,   MACT,   MYSURU,
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.1,59,000/- WITH INTEREST
@ 9% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.


     THIS    M.F.A   IS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                 3



                        JUDGMENT

This appeal is by the Insurance Company challenging

the judgment and award dated 03.08.2017 passed in MVC

No.546/2013 by the MACT, Mysuru, on the question of

liability and also being aggrieved by the award of interest

at 9% per annum.

2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are; that on

01.10.2012, deceased Ramaswamy and others were

proceeding in a Car bearing No.KA 09-P-4732 towards

Palahalli Village, which was driven by the

driver/respondent No.3 herein and when they were on

Mysuru-KRS road, in front of Kunbarakoppalu gate i.e. in

front of Raghavendra Carriers, a Swaraj Mazda vehicle

came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed from

back side of the car and dashed to the hind portion of the

car on its left side and thereby respondent No.3 lost

control over his car and dashed to the right side of the

road. Due to which, the deceased and others sustained

injuries. Immediately, the deceased was admitted to the

Hospital, but in spite of treatment, he succumbed to the

injuries on the next day. Hence, the claimants preferred a

claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation.

3. After service of notice of the petition, the driver and

the owner of the offending vehicle, who are respondent

Nos.1 and 2 therein, appeared through their respective

counsel and filed common objections denying the entire

averments of the petition. Respondent No.3/Insurance

Company filed a separate written statement disputing the

very fact of the accident and also denying the entire

averments made in the petition.

4. The Tribunal, on the basis of the claim and the

contentions of the parties, framed necessary issues for its

consideration and on the basis of oral and documentary

evidence adduced and produced by the parties, allowed

the claim petition in-part, awarding a compensation of

Rs.1,59,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum

from the date of petition till its realisation fastening the

primary liability on Insurance Company and accordingly,

directed the Insurance Company to deposit the award

amount within 30 days from the date of the award. Being

aggrieved by the same, the Insurance company is before

this Court in this appeal questioning the liability and the

award of interest @ 9% p.a.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance

Company submitted that the vehicle involved in the

accident is a Maxi Cab, which is a Light Motor Vehicle

(LMV) and the driver of the vehicle was driving it without

having an endorsement as Transport, but driving transport

vehicle without getting an endorsement on the driving

licence. Hence, submitted that the appellant-Insurance

Company is not liable to pay the compensation.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance

Company further submitted that the interest awarded on

the compensation at the rate of 9% per annum is high and

the Tribunal ought to have awarded the interest at the rate

of 6% per annum. Therefore, prays for reducing the rate

of interest to 6% per annum.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent

Nos.1 to 3 submitted that the driver of the vehicle was

holding driving licence to drive light motor vehicle in that

class of vehicles. He further submitted that the quantum

of compensation awarded is very less and the rate of

interest awarded at 9% per annum is as per the judgment

of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Therefore, the same does not

call for any interference. Hence, prayed for dismissal of

the appeal.

8. It is an admitted fact that the driver of the offending

vehicle was driving Swaraj Mazda, which met with the

accident. It is the contention of learned counsel for the

appellant that the driver was not holding valid and

required licence as there is no endorsement in the driving

licence to drive transport vehicle. Therefore, contended

the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation.

9. The question of the appellant is answered by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs.

Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in AIR

2017 SC 3668 wherein, at paragraphs 45 and 46, their

Lordships have observed as follows:

"45. Transport vehicle has been defined in section 2(47) of the Act, to mean a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle. Public service vehicle has been defined in section 2(35) to mean any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward and includes a maxicab, a motor cab, contract marriage, and stage carriage. Goods carriage which is also a transport vehicle is defined in section 2(14) to mean a motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods. It was rightly submitted that a person holding licence to drive light motor vehicle registered for private use, who is driving a similar vehicle which is registered or insured, for the purpose of carrying passengers for hire or reward, would not require an endorsement as to drive a transport vehicle, as the same is not contemplated by the provisions of the Act. It was also rightly contended that there are several vehicles which can be used for private use as well as for carrying passengers for hire or reward. When a driver is authorised to drive a vehicle, he can drive it irrespective of the fact whether it is used

for a private purpose or for purpose of hire or reward or for carrying the goods in the said vehicle.

It is what is intended by the provision of the Act, and the Amendment Act 54/1994.

46. Section 10 of the Act requires a driver to hold a licence with respect to the class of vehicles and not with respect to the type of vehicles. In one class of vehicles, there may be different kinds of vehicles. If they fall in the same class of vehicles, no separate endorsement is required to drive such vehicles. As light motor vehicle includes transport vehicle also, a holder of light motor vehicle licence can drive all the vehicles of the class including transport vehicles. It was pre- amended position as well the post-amended position of Form 4 as amended on 28.3.2001. Any other interpretation would be repugnant to the definition of "light motor vehicle" in section 2(21) and the provisions of section 10(2)(d), Rule 8 of the Rules of 1989, other provisions and also the forms which are in tune with the provisions.

Even   otherwise     the        forms      never      intended    to
exclude       transport           vehicles            from       the

category of 'light motor vehicles' and for light motor vehicle, the validity period of such licence hold good and apply for the transport vehicle of such class also and the expression in Section 10(2)(e) of the Act 'Transport Vehicle' would

include medium goods vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, heavy passenger motor vehicle which earlier found place in section 10(2)(e) to (h) and our conclusion is fortified by the syllabus and rules which we have discussed. Thus we answer the questions which are referred to us thus:

(i) 'Light motor vehicle' as defined in section 2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in section 2(21) read with section 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act No.54/1994.

(ii) A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, 'unladen weight' of which does not exceed 7500 kg. and holder of a driving licence to drive class of "light motor vehicle" as provided in section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the "unladen weight" of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport

vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form.

(iii) The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act No.54/1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 while substituting clauses (e) to (h) of section 10(2) which contained "medium goods vehicle" in section 10(2)(e), medium passenger motor vehicle in section 10(2)(f), heavy goods vehicle in section 10(2)(g) and "heavy passenger motor vehicle" in section 10(2)(h) with expression 'transport vehicle' as substituted in section 10(2)(e) related only to the aforesaid substituted classes only. It does not exclude transport vehicle, from the purview of section 10(2)(d) and section 2(41) of the Act i.e. light motor vehicle.

(iv) The effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of "transport vehicle" is related only to the categories which were substituted in the year 1994 and the procedure to obtain driving licence for transport vehicle of class of "light motor vehicle" continues to be the same as it was and has not been changed and there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle

of such class without any endorsement to that effect."

Therefore, applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble

Apex Court and considering the facts made out in the

present case, the vehicle in question is a Maxi Cab.

Admittedly, the driver of the Maxi Cab was holding driving

licence to drive light mother vehicle, but there is no

endorsement in the driving licence to drive a transport

vehicle. Since the vehicle in question is a light motor

vehicle and the driver was holding the driving licence to

drive light motor vehicle. he is competent to drive light

mother vehicle or both class of vehicle i.e., transport and

non-transport. Therefore, the appellant-Insurance

Company cannot escape its liability to pay compensation.

10. The Tribunal has awarded compensation under

different heads, which is as follows;

"1) Towards loss of Financial Rs. 90,000-00 Dependency.

2) Towards loss of love and Rs. 20,000-00 affection.

3) Towards loss of estate Rs. 10,000-00

4) Towards Funeral Expenses Rs. 25,000-00 and transportation of body.

      5)    Medical expenses                 Rs.     14,000-00

                        Total                Rs.1,59,000-00"


11.   The   Tribunal    has     awarded      compensation        of

Rs.1,59,000/- to the children of the deceased with interest

at 9% per annum. It is contended by learned counsel for

appellant-Insurance Company that the rate of interest

awarded may be reduced to 6% per annum.

12. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of

Rs.90,000/- towards "loss of dependency" by taking the

monthly income at Rs.3,000/- per month and then by

deducting 50% towards living and personal expenses,

granted the above said compensation under the head "loss

of dependency". Admittedly, the deceased was a married

person and having children. Learned counsel for the

appellant-Insurance Company argued that since the

claimants are major, they were not depending on the

income of the deceased and they may be entitled to

compensation under the head "loss of estate". But

considering the facts that the claimants have lost their