Karnataka High Court
The New India Assurnce Co Ltd vs Sri Prakash on 7 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:44478
MFA No. 7979 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7979 OF 2016(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE NEW INDIA ASSURNCE CO LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, BANGALORE-80
THROUGH MOTOR THIRD PARTY CLAIMS HUB,
M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE -560 001
BY DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K. SURYANARAYANA RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI PRAKASH,
S/O SUBBARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/AT NO.46, DURGEENAHALLI
ADENAHALLI, TUBAGERE POST,
Digitally signed
by VINUTHA B S
DODDABALLAPURA,
Location: HIGH BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-561 203
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. SRI. NAGESH M.,
S/O. MUNIRAJU,
MAJOR IN AGE,
R/AT NO.304, 4TH CROSS,
SUMANGALI SEVA ASHRAMA
CHOLANAYAKANAHALLI,HEBBALA,
R.T.NAGAR,BANGALORE-560 032.
...RESPONDENTS
(R1-SERVED, UNREPRESENTED;
R2- SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT;
VIDE ORDER DATED 01/09/2022)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:44478
MFA No. 7979 of 2016
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.05.2016 PASSED IN
MVC NO.7032/12 ON THE FILE OF THE 10TH ADDITIONAL
JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.2,04,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A.
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT,
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Challenge in this appeal is the order that is rendered by
the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, in MVC
No.7032/2012 (common order in MVC No.7032/2012 and MVC
No.6777/2012).
2. Heard learned counsel who appeared for the
appellant. Despite service of notice, none appeared for
respondents.
3. Though number of grounds were urged by the
appellant in the grounds of appeal, the learned counsel for the
appellant limited his submission with regard to the licence
which respondent No.2 was holding as on the date of accident.
Learned counsel states that the Tribunal erred in fastening
liability upon the appellant, as the driver of the offending
vehicle was holding light motor vehicle non transport driving
NC: 2023:KHC:44478
licence and was found driving a transport vehicle when the
accident occurred.
4. The evidence of RW2 who is the Officer of the
appellant is that the licence holder was authorized to drive light
motor vehicle non transport for the period from 31.07.2006 to
30.7.2026 and there is an endorsement to drive transport
vehicle i.e. Rigid Chassis for the period from 29.03.2010 to
28.03.2013. RW1 also stated that the licence holder was not
authorized to drive the offending vehicle that i.e., Motor Cab.
5. The decision that is rendered by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663 requires
reference and application for coming to a just conclusion with
regard to the stand taken by the appellant. Discussing with
regard to the definition assigned to transport vehicle under
Motor Vehicles Act and allied aspects, their Lordships at
paragraph No.60 of the judgment held as follows:-
NC: 2023:KHC:44478
"60. Thus, we answer the questions which are
referred to us thus:
60.1. "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 Sections 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport
vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the
light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act 54 of
1994.
60.2. 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 roadroller, "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 roadroller, 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 of 1994 and 28.3.2001 in the
form.
60.3 The effect of the amendment made by
virtue of Act 54 of 1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 while
NC: 2023:KHC:44478
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.
60.4. 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."
Thus, by the aforementioned decision it is clear that a
person holding licence to drive light motor vehicle is entitled to
drive a transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement
to that effect.
NC: 2023:KHC:44478
6. A perusal of the impugned order goes to show that
the learned Judge of the Tribunal taking into consideration all
the aspects of the case and the law governing the field has
come to a just conclusion that the appellant is liable to pay
compensation to the extent the claimant is entitled to.
Therefore, the ultimate conclusion of this Court is that the
present appeal lacks merits and deserves dismissal.
7. Thus, the appeal stands dismissed without costs.
The amount if any deposited by the appellant and still in the
credit of the High Court, be transmitted to the concerned
Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AP
CT:TSM
