Karnataka High Court
Sri Narayanaswamy vs Smt Alumelamma on 23 October, 2024
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:42765
MFA No. 2688 of 2020
C/W MFA No. 2740 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2688 OF 2020
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2740 OF 2020
IN MFA No. 2688/2020:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI NARAYANASWAMY
S/O. LATE. RANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
PROP. VANAMAALA SERVCE CENTER,
HULIKUNTE ROAD,
KORATAGERE TOWN AND TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT 572129.
REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY,
Digitally SRI. DAYANANDA KN,
signed by S/O. NARAYANASWAMY,
KIRAN
KUMAR R VANAMAALA SERVCE CENTER,
Location: HULIKUNTE ROAD,
HIGH KORATAGERE TOWN AND TALUK,
COURT OF TUMKUR DISTRICT 572129
KARNATAKA
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAMESH K R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI SUDARSHAN
S/O. NARAYANAPPA,
R/AT RANGANATHAPURA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT 572101.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:42765
MFA No. 2688 of 2020
C/W MFA No. 2740 of 2020
2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD
ISSUED OFFICE AT NELAMANAGALA,
SERVICE ADDRESS,
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD,
JC ROAD,
TUMKUR 572101,
REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ASHOK.N.NAYAK., ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
R-1 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.01.2020
PASSED IN MVC NO.733/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE III
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, TUMAKURU,
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.2,10,000/- WITH
INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION
TILL REALIZATION.
IN MFA NO. 2740/2020:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI NARAYANASWAMY
S/O LATE RANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
PROP VANAMAALA SERVICE CENTRE,
HULIKUNTE ROAD,
KORATAGERE TOWN AND TALUK,
TUMKURU DIST 572129.
REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY
SRI DAYANANDA K N,
S/O NARAYANASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
PROP VANAMAALA SERVICE CENTRE,
HULIKUNTE ROAD,
KORATAGERE TOWN AND TALUK,
TUMKURU DIST 572129
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAMESH K R., ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:42765
MFA No. 2688 of 2020
C/W MFA No. 2740 of 2020
AND:
1. SMT ALUMELAMMA
W/O NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
R/AT RANGANATHAPURA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
TUMAKURU TALUK AND DIST 572101.
2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD.
ISSUED OFFICE AT NELAMANGALA,
SERVICE ADDRESS,
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD.
JC ROAD, TUMKUR
REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ASHOK.N.NAYAK., ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
R-1 SERVED)
THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.01.2020
PASSED IN MVC NO.726/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE III
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND M.A.C.T., TUMKUR,
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 70,000/- WITH INTEREST
AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS
REALIZATION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. In both these appeals, the owner of the tanker lorry
is aggrieved by the exoneration of liability of the Insurer
by the Tribunal.
NC: 2024:KHC:42765
2. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that though the
driver of the tanker lorry did possess a valid driving
licence, he did not have the requisite endorsement to drive
the transport vehicle carrying hazardous goods.
3. It is the case of the learned counsel for the owner
that the driver of the tanker lorry did satisfy the
requirement of the Rules for driving a tanker carrying
hazardous goods. He submits that as per Rule 9 of the
Central Motor Vehicles Rules, the driver who transports
dangerous or hazardous goods, in addition to being the
holder of a driving licence to drive a transport vehicle, is
required to have the ability to read and write at least one
Indian language and is also required to possess a
certificate for having successfully passed a course
consisting the prescribed syllabus.
4. He points out that the owner had in fact produced
Ex.R4, which is a certificate issued by the Ashok Leyland
Driver Training Institute to the effect that the driver had
attended and successfully completed the training course
NC: 2024:KHC:42765
on safe transportation of hazardous goods which was
conducted from 07.03.2012 to 09.03.2012. He also
submits that at the time of renewal of licence, as required
under the Rules, the driver has attended one-day
refresher training programme as evident from Ex.R5. He
further submits that the driver had undergone second
one-day refresher training programme conducted on
26.01.2014 and thus, the driver had satisfied all the
requirement of Rules relating to driving of transport
vehicle carrying hazardous goods.
5. On perusal of Exs.R4, R5 and R6, there can be no
room for doubt that in addition to having a licence to drive
the transport vehicle, which the driver admittedly
possessed, he also possessed certificates indicating that
he had completed a training course in relation to safe
transportation of hazardous goods conducted by the
manufacturer of Ashok Leyland and he had also undergone
two 0ne-day refresher training programmes conducted by
the Transport Department Officer's Association. It is
NC: 2024:KHC:42765
therefore clear that the requirement of Rule 9 of the
Central Motor Vehicle Rules i.e., having successfully
passed a course consisting of the prescribed syllabus in
relation to safe transportation of hazardous goods and the
undertaking of a refresher course at the time of renewal of
licence had both been satisfied. It is therefore clear that
the owner of the driver of the tanker lorry was duly
licenced to transport hazardous goods.
6. It may also be pertinent to state here that as against
refusal of the Insurer to pay damages suffered by the
tanker lorry, proceedings were initiated by the owner
before the District Consumer Redressal Forum and
ultimately an order was passed in favour of the owner by
the State Consumer Redressal Commission and the
Insurer challenged the said order by filing a revision
before the National Consumer Redressal Commission,
which also has recorded a finding that as on the date of
the accident, the driver was not only having a valid
licence, but was also having a requisite endorsement to
NC: 2024:KHC:42765
safely drive the transport vehicle carrying hazardous
goods.
7. In my view, in the light of the above, the findings of
the Tribunal that the driver of the tanker lorry did not
possess the requisite endorsement with regard to the
requirement of the Rules to drive the transport vehicle
carrying hazardous goods cannot be accepted.
Consequently, the appeals are allowed and it is held that
the Insurer shall be liable for payment of compensation to
the claimants.
8. The amount, if any, deposited by the owner shall be
refunded to the owner of the tanker lorry.
Sd/-
(N S SANJAY GOWDA)
JUDGE
