Karnataka High Court
Hemalath @ G Hemalath vs Sri Pennali Nagaraj S/O Basappa on 21 June, 2022
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE , 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8326/2017 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
HEMALATH @ G. HEMALATH
W/O. SURESH @ G. SURESH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
NEAR BASAPPA HOSPITAL ROAD
B.L. GOWDA LAYOUT
CHITRADURGA-577501.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGADE NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE )
AND:
1. SRI. PENNALI NAGARAJ S/O. BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
OWNER OF M & M MAX CAR
NO.KA-35/A-4802
R/O. SIDDAPURA POST, KUDLIGI TQ,
BELLARY DISTRICT - 583135.
2. SRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REP. BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER
REGIONAL OFFICE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BEELEKALAHALLY
BENGALURU - 560076.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.C. SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
RESPONDENT NO. 1 - SERVED)
THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.01.2017
PASSED IN MVC NO.268/2015 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL
2
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & IV MACT AT CHITRADURGA, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC.,
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed under Section-173(1) of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred to as 'MV
Act' for brevity) by the appellant - claimant challenging the
judgment and award dated 28.01.2017, passed in MVC
No.268/2015, on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge &
IV MACT at Chitradurga, (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Tribunal' for brevity) seeking enhancement.
Brief facts:
2. On 30.08.2013 at about 7.30 p.m. when the
appellant - claimant was walking extremely on left side of
NH-4 road near Maruthi Nagar railway under bridge,
Davangere to Bangalore road (2 kms away from east
Chitradurga Traffic Police Station), the driver of M & M Max
bearing Reg. No.KA-35-A-4802 came in a rash and
negligent manner with high speed and dashed to the
appellant. As a result, she fell down, sustained grievous
head injuries and immediately she was shifted to
Government Hospital, Chitradurga and she has taken
treatment as an inpatient for one week. She is under
follow-up treatment at Bangalore and Davanagere. Inspite
of better treatment she is suffering from total permanent
disability. Appellant was hale and healthy prior to accident
and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by doing business.
3. Hence, a claim petition was filed by the appellant
under Section-166 of the M.V. Act, claiming compensation
for the injuries sustained in the accident. The Tribunal on
appreciating the materials on record, allowed the petition
in part with costs, and awarded total compensation of
Rs.25,000/-, along with interest at 8% per annum from
the date of petition till the date of deposit. The Tribunal
held respondent No.1 therein to pay the compensation and
dismissed the petition against respondent No.2.
4. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the
appellant and the learned counsel for respondent No.1 -
owner of the offending vehicle and perused the materials
on record.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded by
the Tribunal is on lesser side. Therefore, seeks for
enhancement of the compensation. It is further submitted
that the driver of maxi cab was holding driving licence to
drive light motor vehicle, and the vehicle in question is
'light motor vehicle' and just because non-mentioning of
'transport vehicle' in the driving licence cannot be taken as
a ground to exonerate the insurance company from paying
the compensation. To substantiate the same, he has
placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN VS.
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, reported
in AIR 2017 SC 3668.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent No.2 - insurance company
submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by
Tribunal is just and proper and needs no interference. It is
further submitted that the driver of the offending vehicle
was holding a licence to drive 'light motor vehicle - non-
transport vehicle', but the vehicle in question was
'transport vehicle'. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in
fixing the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle.
7. Ex.P-5 is the wound certificate issued by the
District Government Hospital, Chitradurga, which proves
that the appellant had sustained following injuries :
i. Contusion and tenderness present in right
knee joint.
ii. Abrasion present in left great toe.
iii. Lacerated wound to the left forehead.
iv. Cut wound to the left elbow joint.
v. Tenderness present in right shoulder joints.
vi. Contusion & tenderness present in left side
of chest.
8. The Tribunal has awarded global compensation of
Rs.25,000/-. Considering the fact that the appellant is a
woman and doing tailoring work, even though there are no
fracture injuries, but certainly the above injuries affect the
appellant to perform the work. Therefore, the
compensation is to be marginally enhanced considering the
nature of injuries and avocation of the appellant.
Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to global
compensation of Rs.35,000/- including what has been
awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, the enhanced
compensation of Rs.10,000/- shall carry interest at the
rate of 6% per annum.
9. The Tribunal has fixed the liability on the
respondent No.1 owner by exonerating the insurance
company on the ground that the driving licence was issued
only to drive 'light motor vehicle - Non-transport' and not
'transport vehicle'. The said legal position is discussed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MUKUND
DEWANGAN (supra) as below :
"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."
10. In the present case, it is undisputed fact that the
offending vehicle is maxi cab which is 'transport vehicle'
which is a 'light motor vehicle'. The driver was holding
driving licence to drive 'light motor vehicle (non-transport
vehicle)' and just because there is no endorsement of the
word 'transport vehicle' in the driving licence does not
disqualify the driver to drive transport vehicle also.
Therefore, the above said judgment is squarely applicable
to the facts of the case on hand. Hence, there is no
violation of conditions of policy. Therefore, the
observation made by the Tribunal fixing liability on the
respondent No.1 - owner of the offending vehicle is set
aside and the liability is fixed on the insurance company.
11. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed in part.
ii. The appellant is entitled for an additional
compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand Only), along with interest at 6%
per annum from the date of filing of the
petition till deposit in addition to what has
been awarded by the Tribunal.
iii. The insurance company is directed to deposit
the entire compensation amount to the
appellant - claimant.
iv. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court
Records to the Tribunal, along with certified
copy of the order passed by this Court
forthwith without any delay.
v. Draw award accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Hnm
