Karnataka High Court
The Manager vs Seenappa on 1 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:4415
MFA No. 4406 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4406 OF 2014(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
1. THE MANAGER
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
CBO-14, NO.19/1, I FLOOR,
III CROSS, CHIKKANNA GARDEN,
SHANKARMATA COMPOUND,
BANGALORE-4,
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER,
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE NO.44/45,
LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX,
RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE-25.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. HARINI SHIVANANDA.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SEENAPPA
41 YEARS,
Digitally
signed by S/O.MUNIYAPPA, AGRICULTURIST,
BHARATHI S R/O UPASAPURA VILLAGE,
Location: MALUR TALUK-563 130,
HIGH COURT
OF 2. SRI A NAGARAJ,
KARNATAKA
36 YEARS,
S/O ABBAIAHAPPA,
R/O MADANAHATTI VILLAGE,
MALUR TALUK-563130.
...RESPONDENTS
(R1 AND R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:1.4.2014 PASSED IN MVC
NO.02/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MACT, MALUR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.83,600/-
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:4415
MFA No. 4406 of 2014
WITH INTEREST @ 6%P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
ITS COMPLETE PAYMENT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The above appeal is filed by the insurer challenging the
judgment and award dated 01.04.2014 passed in MVC No.
No.02/2013 by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Malur1.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are
referred as per their rank before the Tribunal.
3. The above appeal is filed by the insurer alleging
that the driver of the insured vehicle did not have a valid and
effective driving licence to drive the insured vehicle at the time
of the accident, in as much as, the driver of the vehicle was
authorized to drive a motor vehicle with gear, light motor
vehicles, and tractor and trailer. That as on the date of the
accident, the insured vehicle being a goods autorickshaw
Mahindra three wheeler commercial vehicle, he was not
authorized to drive the insured vehicle. It is further sought to
be contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the
Hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'
NC: 2024:KHC:4415
Tribunal in MVC No.126/2005 on the file of II Addl. Civil Judge
(Sr.Dn) and Addl. MACT, Kolar) had, by its judgment and award
dated 11.02.2010 awarded the compensation of `.15,000/-.
Being aggrieved, the appellant/insurer has preferred an appeal
in MFA No.5020/2010 and this Court by its judgment dated
22.04.2013 has set aside the award and remanded the matter
to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. Subsequently, the
Tribunal by its judgment and award dated 01.04.2014 has
awarded a compensation of `.83,600/-. That the Tribunal
ought not to have awarded compensation is excess of the
judgment and award dated 11.02.2010.
4. Both the contentions put forth by the insurer are
ex-facie un-sustainable and liable to be rejected having regard
to the following:
i) The contention of the insurer with regard to the
driver holding a valid and effective driving licence is
liable to be rejected having regard to the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Mukund Dewagan V/s Oriental Insurance
NC: 2024:KHC:4415
Company Limited2 wherein it is made as
follows:
"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".
(emphasis supplied)
ii) The contention of the insurer with regard to the
quantum of compensation being awarded in excess
of what was awarded earlier by its judgment and
award dated 11.02.2010 is also to be rejected, in
view of the fact that this Court by its judgment dated
22.04.2013 has set aside the entire award and
remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh
consideration. Moreover the said ground has not
(2017 )14 SCC 663
NC: 2024:KHC:4415
been urged by the appellant in the memorandum of
appeal filed in the present case.
5. In view of the aforementioned, the following order
is passed:
ORDER
i) The above appeal is dismissed.
ii) The judgment and award dated 01.04.2014 passed
in MVC No. 02.2013 on the file of the Senior Civil
Judge and MACT, Malur, is affirmed.
iii) The amount deposited by the Appellant before this
Court shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for
disbursement in terms of the award of the Tribunal.
iv) The balance amount of compensation shall be
deposited by the insurer within six weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;
v) No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KBM
