IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT M.F.A. NO.7117/2012 (MV) BETWEEN:
C R JAGADISH S/O RAMAKRISHNEGOWDA AGED 37 YEARS R/AT CHUNCHANAKATTE VILLAGE AND POST K R NAGAR TALUK MYSORE DIST.
(BY SRI.GURUPRASAD B.R., ADV. FOR M/S.PRASAD & SANDHYA ASSOCIATES) AND:
1. SMT. GANGAMMA W/O KEMPEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT KALLIMUDDANAHALLI VILLAGE K R NAGAR TALUK.
2. THE MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO.4/12, NAVEEN COMPLEX 1ST FLOOR, HEBBAL MAIN ROAD METAGALLI, MYSORE.
(BY SRI.K K VASANTH, ADV. FOR R2 R1-SERVED) ... APPELLANT ... RESPONDENTS THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:20.04.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.26/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AND JMFC, K.R.NAGAR, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.28,896/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The appellant owner of the offending vehicle is before this Court in this appeal assailing the judgment and award dated 20.04.2012 passed in MVC No.26/2010, by which liability is saddled on the appellant/owner.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the claimant /respondent No.1 filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation for the injuries suffered in a road traffic accident that occurred on 11.06.2010. The accident that took place on 11.06.2010 involving Tempo Trax bearing registration No.KA-45-292 and the accidental injuries suffered by the claimant is not in dispute in this appeal. The challenge in this appeal is the saddling of liability on the appellant/owner of the vehicle.
3. The Tribunal based on material on record awarded total compensation of a sum of Rs.28,896/- along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit, saddling the liability on the respondent No.1/owner therein, on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving license as on the date of the accident i.e., there was no endorsement on the driving license for driving the transport vehicle.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that in MVC No.726/2011 arising out of the same accident, the Tribunal had awarded compensation of a sum of Rs.3,56,000/- and had saddled the liability on the Insurance Company, which the Insurance Company has accepted and satisfied the award. Therefore, in the above circumstances, saddling of the liability in this case on the appellant/owner is not just and proper and prays for allowing the appeal.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, I am of the view, that Ex.R2 is the driving license produced before the Tribunal. It is an admitted fact that the driver of the offending vehicle had license to drive Light Motor Vehicle, but there was no endorsement to drive the transport vehicle. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision MUKUND DEWANGAN Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663 has held at paragraphs 55, 58 and 59 as follows :-
“55. Section 10(2) (a) to (j) lays down the classes of vehicles to be driven, not a specific kind of motor vehicles in that class. If a vehicle falls into any of the categories, a licence -holder holding licence to drive the class of vehicle can drive all vehicles of that particular class. No separate endorsement is to be obtained nor provided, if the vehicle falls in any of the particular classes of section 10(2). This Court has rightly observed in Nagashetty that in case submission to the contrary is accepted, then every time an owner of a private car, who has a licence to drive a light motor vehicle, attaches a roof carrier to his car or a trailer to his car and carries goods thereon, the light motor vehicle would become a transport vehicle and the owner would be deemed to have no licence to drive that vehicle. It would lead to absurd results. Merely because a trailer is added either to a tractor or to a motor vehicle it by itself does not mean that driver ceased to have valid driving licence. In our considered opinion, even if such a vehicle is treated as transport vehicle of the light motor vehicle class, legal position would not change and driver would still have a valid driving licence to drive transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class, whether it is a transport vehicle or a private car/tractor attached with trolley or used for carrying goods in the form of transport vehicle. The ultimate conclusion in Nagashetty is correct, however, for the reasons as explained by us.
56. XXXXX 57. XXXXX 58. “Transport vehicle” has been defined in section 2(47) of the Act, to mean a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle. “Public service vehicle” has been defined in section 2(35) to mean any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward and includes a maxicab, a motor cab, contract carriage, and stage carriage. “Goods carriage” which is also a transport vehicle is defined in section 2(14) to mean a motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods. It was rightly submitted that a person holding licence to drive light motor vehicle registered for private use, who is driving a similar vehicle which is registered or insured, for the purpose of carrying passengers for hire or reward, would not require an endorsement as to drive a transport vehicle, as the same is not contemplated by the provisions of the Act. It was also rightly contended that there are several vehicles which can be used for private use as well as for carrying passengers for hire or reward. When a driver is authorised to drive a vehicle, he can drive it irrespective of the fact whether it is used for a private purpose or for purpose of hire or reward or for carrying the goods in the said vehicle. It is what is intended by the provision of the Act, and the Amendment Act 54/1994.
59. 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 1989 Rules, 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 sections 10(2)(e) to (h) and our conclusion is fortified by the syllabus and rules which we have discussed.”
6. Following the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Insurance Company would be liable to pay the compensation and the owner cannot be saddled with liability. Moreover, in MVC No.726/2011 arising out of the same accident wherein the liability was saddled on the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company has satisfied the award accepting the judgment and award.
7. Hence the present appeal filed by the owner is allowed and modified to the effect that the 2nd respondent shall indemnify the owner and shall pay the compensation and deposit the amount with interest before the Tribunal. The statutory amount in deposit be refunded to the appellant/owner.
Sd/- JUDGE NG* CT:bms