Karnataka High Court
The Regional Manager vs Smt. Sharadamma on 27 September, 2023
Bench: H T Prasad
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:35186
MFA No. 4751 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4751 OF 2018 (MV)
BETWEEN:
THE REGIONAL MANAGER
HDFC ERGO GIC.LTD.,
H.M.GENEVA HOUSE
1ST FLOOR,CUNNINGHAM ROAD
BANGALORE-560 052
AT NOW REP.BY
LEGAL MANAGER
HDFC ERGO GIC.LTD.
2ND FLOOR,NO.25/1
BUILDING NO.2
SHANKARANARAYANA BUILDING
MG ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by AND:
DHANALAKSHMI
MURTHY
Location: High 1. SMT. SHARADAMMA
Court of W/O SRI GOVINDAPPA
Karnataka
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/AT NO.1136/N.G.O.S.COLONY
1ST MAIN,1ST CROSS
KAMALANAGARA
BANGALORE-560 079.
2. SRI CHANDRA KUMAR M
S/O MUNIRAJ P
NO.516TH CROSS
MOODALAPALYA
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:35186
MFA No. 4751 of 2018
SANJEVININAGAR TENT ROAD
BANGALORE-560 078.
3. MR JAYARAM
S/O PATALAPPA
DODDABIDARAKALLU
PATELAPPA GARDEN
SUVARNAGAR
NAGASANDRA POST
BANGALORE-560 073.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M M SWAMY., ADVOCATE FOR R1:
SRI. RAGHAVENDRA S, ADVOCATE FOR R3:
NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH
V/O DATED:27.09.2023)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:03.04.2018
PASSED IN MVC NO.5267/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER,
PRINCIPAL MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-1), AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.4,03,416/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A.
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been
filed by the Insurance Company being aggrieved by the
judgment dated 3.4.2018 passed by MACT, Bangalore in
MVC No. 5267/2014.
NC: 2023:KHC:35186
MFA No. 4751 of 2018
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly
stated are that on 8.7.2014 when the claimant was on
duty as Homeguard and was controlling the traffic at
Kamlammana Gundi Junction, West of Chord Road, at that
time, an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KA-41-A-
0737 being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a
rash and negligent manner, dashed to 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 seeking compensation. It was pleaded that she spent
huge amount towards medical expenses, conveyance
charges, 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 respondents appeared
through counsel and only respondent Nos.1 and 3 filed
NC: 2023:KHC:35186
MFA No. 4751 of 2018
written statement in which the averments made in the
petition were denied.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the
Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded
the evidence. The claimant herself was examined as PW-1
and Dr.Chethana.A was examined as PW-2 and got
exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P15. On behalf
of the respondents, two witnesses were examined as RWs-
1 and 2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1. 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.4,03,416/- along with interest at the
rate of 9% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to
deposit the compensation amount along with interest.
Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed by the
Insurance Company.
NC: 2023:KHC:35186
MFA No. 4751 of 2018
6. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company has
contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not
having valid driving licence as on the date of the accident.
The driver was having driving licence to drive LMV (Non-
transport) and he was driving the transport vehicle. Since
the insured has violated the policy conditions, the
Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. The
Tribunal is not justified in fastening the liability on the
Insurance Company. Further, he contended that in view of
the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of
MS..JOYEETA BOSE AND OTHERS -V-
VENKATESHAN.V AND OTHERS (MFA 5896/2018 AND
CONNECTED MATTERS DISPOSED OF ON 24.8.2020), the
rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. on the
compensation amount is on the higher side. Hence, he
sought for allowing the appeal.
7. The learned counsel for the claimant has contended
that even though the driver of the offending vehicle was
having driving licence to drive LMV (Non-transport) and he
NC: 2023:KHC:35186
MFA No. 4751 of 2018
was driving the transport vehicle, as per the decision of
the Apex Court in the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN vs.
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED reported
in (2017) 14 SCC 663, wherein it is held that a person
holding driving licence to drive LMV (Non-Transport) can
also drive transport vehicle, the unladen weight of which
does not exceed 7500 kgs, the Insurance Company is
liable to pay compensation to the claimant. Therefore, the
Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability on the Insurance
Company. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.
9. It is not in dispute that claimant sustained injuries in
a road traffic accident occurred on 8.7.2014 due to rash
and negligent driving of autorickshaw bearing No.KA-41-A-
0737 by its driver.
10. As on the date of the accident, the driver of the
offending vehicle was having driving licence to drive LMV
NC: 2023:KHC:35186
MFA No. 4751 of 2018
(Non-transport), but he was driving the transport vehicle.
As per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of
MUKUND DEWANGAN (supra), if a person is holding
driving licence to drive LMV (Non-Transport), he can also
drive transport vehicle wherein the unladen weight of the
vehicle does not exceed 7500 kgs. The unladen weight of
the vehicle involved in the accident is less than 7500 kgs.
11. In view of the above decision of the Apex Court, this
Court is of the opinion that the driver of the offending
vehicle was having valid driving licence as on the date of
the accident. Hence, the Insurance Company is liable to
pay compensation. The Tribunal has rightly fastened the
liability on the Insurance Company. There is no error in
the said finding of the Tribunal.
12. However, the rate of interest awarded by the
Tribunal at 9% p.a. on the compensation amount appears
to be on the higher side. Hence, in view of judgment of
the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
NC: 2023:KHC:35186
MFA No. 4751 of 2018
'MS.JOYEETA BOSE' (supra), the compensation amount
shall carry interest at 6% per annum.
13. In the result, the following order is passed:
ORDER
a) The appeal is allowed in part.
b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.
c) The claimant is entitled to total compensation as
awarded by the Tribunal.
d) The compensation amount shall carry interest at
6% p.a.
e) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
compensation amount along with interest
@ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim
petition till the date of realization, within a period of
six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this
judgment.
f) The amount in deposit before this court is ordered to
be transferred to the Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DM
