IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.751 OF 2017 (MV) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.753 OF 2017 (MV) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.752 OF 2017 (MV) BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER M/S.SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. S & S CORNER BUILDING INFRONT OF BOWRING AND LADY CURZON HOSPITAL SHIVAJINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 001 NOW REPRESENTED M/S.SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. NO.5/4, 3RD FLOOR, S.V.ARCADE BILAKAHALLI BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD IIMB POST, BANGALORE REP. BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER ... APPELLANT COMMON (BY SRI B.C.SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. RAMACHANDRA S/O.RANGEGOWDA NOW AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT DUNDANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, KATAYA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT-573 112 2. SOMASHEKARA A.V. S/O.VEERABHADRAIAH MAJOR R/AT ADAVIKOPPALU VILLAGE KATAYA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT-573 112 ... RESPONDENTS IN MFA.No.751/2017 (BY SRI GURUSWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R-2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) AND:
1. RAJU S/O.HANUMEGOWDA NOW AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT DUNDANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, KATAYA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT-573 112 2. SOMASHEKARA A.V. S/O.VEERABHADRAIAH MAJOR R/AT ADAVIKOPPALU VILLAGE KATAYA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT-573 112 ... RESPONDENTS IN MFA.No.753/2017 (BY SRI GURUSWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R-2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) AND:
1. RAMESH D.A. S/O.ANNEGOWDA NOW AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT DUNDANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, KATAYA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT-573 112 2. SOMASHEKARA A.V. S/O.VEERABHADRAIAH MAJOR R/AT ADAVIKOPPALU VILLAGE KATAYA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT-573 112 ... RESPONDENTS IN MFA.No.752/2017 (BY SRI GURUSWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R-2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.11.2016 PASSED IN MVC NOS.1608/2014, 1610/2014 AND 1609/2014 RESPECTIVELY ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT HASSAN.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
J U D G M E N T These appeals are preferred by the Insurance Company against the common judgment and award dated 07.11.2016 passed by the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional M.A.C.T., Hassan in M.V.C.Nos.1608/2014, 1610/2014 and 1609/2014 respectively.
2. The facts of the case are that on 06.06.2014, at about 6.30 p.m., near Chinnenahally Boardgul, when the injured/claimants were proceeding in the motorbike bearing registration No.KA-13-S-5342, at that time, the driver of a Bolero vehicle bearing registration No.KA-13-B- 2485 by driving the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the motorbike, in which the claimants were proceeding, as a result of which, they sustained injuries and they were taken to Hassan Government Hospital and from there to Mangala Hospital, Hassan for further treatment.
3. Respective claim petitions were filed before the Tribunal seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimants.
4. The appellant took a contention that three persons were traveling in the motorcycle and therefore, there is a contributory negligence. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence and material on record, held that there is a contributory negligence at the ratio 25:75% and it is held that 75% of negligence was on the part of driver of the Bolero vehicle and 25% of negligence was on the part of rider of the motorcycle.
5. The Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,75,400/- in M.V.C.No.1608/2014 filed in respect of the rider of the motorcycle and after deducting 25% towards contributory negligence, awarded a compensation Rs.1,31,550/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
6. The Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,64,600/- in M.V.C.No.1609/2014 and Rs.1,53,800/- in M.V.C.No.1610/2014 with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
7. The primary contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurer is that the Bolero vehicle which caused the accident was a goods carrying commercial vehicle and the driver of the said vehicle was not holding a valid driving license and hence, the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation. It is contended that the driver of the vehicle was holding a driving license to drive LMV (NT) and there is no endorsement in the DL to drive a transport vehicle. It is therefore contended that the Tribunal was not justified in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company to pay the compensation.
8. The question raised by the learned counsel for the appellant as above is no more res integra as the same has been already decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Devangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in AIR (2017) 14 SCC 663. Admittedly, the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a driving license to drive LMV (NT). It is not the case of the appellant that the gross weight/unladen weight of the vehicle involved in the accident was more than 7500 kgs. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the above decision at para 46 has held as under:
“Para 46 : Section 10 of the Act requires a driver to hold a licence with respect to the class of vehicles and not with respect to the type of vehicles. In one class of vehicles, there may be different kinds of vehicles. If they fall in the same class of vehicles, no separate endorsement is required to drive such vehicles. As light motor vehicle includes transport vehicle also, a holder of light motor vehicle licence can drive all the vehicles of the class including transport vehicles. It was pre-amended position as well the post- amended position of Form 4 as amended on 28.3.2001. Any other interpretation would be repugnant to the definition of “light motor vehicle” in section 2(21) and the provisions of section 10(2)(d), Rule 8 of the Rules of 1989, other provisions and also the forms which are in tune with the provisions. Even otherwise the forms never intended to exclude transport vehicles from the category of ‘light motor vehicles’ and for light motor vehicle, the validity period of such licence hold good and apply for the transport vehicle of such class also and the expression in Section 10(2)(e) of the Act ‘Transport Vehicle’ would include medium goods vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, heavy passenger motor vehicle which earlier found place in section 10(2)(e) to (h) and our conclusion is fortified by the syllabus and rules which we have discussed. Thus we answer the questions which are referred to us thus:
(i) ‘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 section 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act No.54/1994.
(ii) 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 road roller, ‘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 road-roller, 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 54/1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form.
(iii) The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act No.54/1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 while 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.
(iv) 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.”
9. In view of the above dictum, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation cannot be accepted.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the interest awarded in the present case is on a higher side inasmuch as the Tribunal has not given any reason to award 8% interest.
11. In this regard, it is seen that the accident took place on 06.06.2014. In similar situations, interest at the rate of 6% per annum is being awarded by this Court. The same is not disputed. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, I am of the view that without modifying the quantum of compensation, the interest awarded by the Tribunal can be scaled down from 8% to 6% per annum.
Accordingly, I pass the following :-
ORDER The above MFAs are partly allowed. The Judgment and award dated 07.11.2016 passed in M.V.C.Nos.1608/2014, 1610/2014 and 1609/2014 only in respect of awarding interest of 8% per annum is hereby modified.
The compensation awarded shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
Amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE SBN/PYR