Karnataka High Court
The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Krishnappa on 30 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:30107
MFA No. 10449 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
MFA NO. 10449 OF 2012 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD
B.H.ROAD, TUMKUR
(POLICY NO.672301/34/08/01/000 14390,)
VALID FROM 03.11.2008 TO 02.11.2009
BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
REGIONAL OFFICE, "MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS"
2ND FLOOR, 9/2, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001
REP. BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. P B RAJU, ADV.)
AND:
1. KRISHNAPPA
S/O GIRIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/AT BOMMATHIGERE
KOTHAGERE HOBLI
KUNIGAL TALUK - 572 180
Digitally signed by
PRAJWAL A
2. B.R.DEVARAJU
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA S/O.RAMAIAH
R/O.BOMMATHIGERE
KOTHAGERE HOBLI
KUNIGAL TALUK - 572 180 ...RESPONDENTS
(R1 AND R2 ARE SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.6.2012
PASSED IN MVC NO.1219/2009 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE & JMFC, ADDITIONAL MACT, KUNIGAL, AWARDING A
COMPENSATION OF RS.82,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:30107
MFA No. 10449 of 2012
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
In this appeal, the Insurance Company has
challenged the judgment and award dated 19.06.2012
passed in M.V.C.No.1219/2009 by the Court of the
Senior Civil Judge & JMFC and Addl.M.A.C.T., Kunigal
('the Tribunal' for short).
2. Appellant is second respondent, respondent
No.1 is petitioner and respondent No.2 is respondent
No.1 before the Tribunal. For the sake of convenience,
the rank of the parties shall be referred to as per their
status before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are, on 08.04.2009 at
about 09.30 p.m., while the petitioner was travelling in
an auto rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-06-B-7513 near
Kithnamangala Board, Kunigal Taluk, met with an
accident due to which, the inmates of the auto
rickshaw including the petitioner sustained injuries. He
NC: 2024:KHC:30107
was treated at Government Hospital, Kunigal, A.C.Giri
Hospital. After taking treatment, the petitioner
approached the Tribunal for grant of compensation of
Rs.5,00,000/-. Claim was opposed by the Insurance
Company. The Tribunal after taking the evidence and
on hearing both sides awarded the compensation of
Rs.82,000/- with 6% interest p.a. and directed the
owner and insurer of the auto rickshaw to pay
compensation. Assailing the liability fastened against
the Insurance Company, the present appeal is filed.
4. Heard the arguments of
Sri.P.B.Raju, learned counsel for the Insurance
Company. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are served and
unrepresented.
5. The contention of the learned counsel for the
Insurance Company is that the driver of the auto
rickshaw ought to have held the driving licence to drive
the transport auto rickshaw. Hence, there is breach of
terms and conditions of the policy, the owner has to
NC: 2024:KHC:30107
pay compensation and sought for dismissal of the
claim against the Insurance Company.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the
arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the
Insurance Company and perused the records.
7. The accident is not in question. The precise
dispute is only with respect to driving licence of the
driver of the auto rickshaw. Ex.R2 is the driving
licence pertaining to the driver of the auto rickshaw
which explains that light motor three wheeler non-
transport licence issued with effect from 25.11.1995.
The accident is of the year 2009.
8. The material on record points out the accident
in question in which the petitioner sustained injuries
and the Tribunal has considered the gravity of injuries
and the entitlement of the petitioner for compensation
and awarded a sum of Rs.82,000/- under different
NC: 2024:KHC:30107
heads. The quantum of compensation is not in
dispute.
9. As regarding liability is concerned, the auto
rickshaw was a passenger vehicle. The driver of the
auto rickshaw was holding Light Motor Vehicle-3
wheeler non-transport driving licence. The issue in this
regard was not settled in the year 2009 and even in
the year 2012. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Mukund
Dewangan -Vs- Oriental Insurance Company
Limited 1 has settled this issue that a person holding a
light motor 3 wheeler is also entitled to drive a
transport vehicle. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed
thus:
"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
(2017) 14 SCC 663
NC: 2024:KHC:30107
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."
(emphasis supplied)
10. The auto rickshaw in question is fallen within
the category of 'light motor vehicle'. In the instant
case, the driver of the auto rickshaw holds valid driving
licence to drive light motor vehicle. Hence, in view of
the law being settled, the contention of the Insurance
Company has been thereby answered. Hence, the
appeal is devoid of merits. In the result, the following;
ORDER
(i) Appeal is dismissed;
(ii) The impugned judgment and award is
confirmed;
(iii) The amount in deposit and also the statutory
deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the
Tribunal.
SD/-
(T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA)
JUDGE
KNM
