IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.NO.9419 OF 2015 (MV) c/w M.F.A.NO.9420 OF 2015 (MV) IN MFA.NO.9419/2015 BETWEEN LEGAL MANAGER, SRIRAM GENERAL INS. CO. LTD., NO.5 MONARCH CHAMBERS, III FLOOR, INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE-27.
NOW REP. BY THE LEGAL MANAGER, SRIRAM GENERAL INS. CO. LTD., 3RD FLOOR, S AND S CORNER BUILDING, OPP. BOWRING AND LADY CURZON HOSPITAL, BANGALORE-01.
(BY SRI. PRADEEP. B, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. K. DEVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, S/O LATE DEVEGOWDA, R/AT NO.1390, 10TH CROSS, CHAMUNDESHWARI NAGAR, ... APPELLANT MANDYA CITY – 571 401.
2. SIDDARAMU, MAJOR, S/O SIDDEGOWDA, R/AT 2ND CROSS, MARIGOWDA BADAVANE, MANDYA – 571 401.
... RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.07.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.325/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDITIONAL MACT, MANDYA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.20,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.
IN MFA.NO.9420/2015 BETWEEN LEGAL MANAGER, SRIRAM GENERAL INS. CO. LTD., NO.5 MONARCH CHAMBERS, III FLOOR, INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE-27.
NOW REP. BY THE LEGAL MANAGER, SRIRAM GENERAL INS. CO. LTD., 3RD FLOOR, S AND S CORNER BUILDING, OPP. BOWRING AND LADY CURZON HOSPITAL, BANGALORE-01.
(BY SRI. PRADEEP. B, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SAVITHRAMMA W/O K. DEVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO.1390, 10TH CROSS, CHAMUNDESHWARI NAGAR, MANDYA CITY – 571 401.
2. SIDDARAMU, MAJOR, S/O SIDDEGOWDA, R/AT 2ND CROSS, MARIGOWDA BADAVANE, MANDYA – 571 401.
(R1 & R2 – SERVED UNREPRESENTED) ... APPELLANT ... RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.07.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.322/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDITIONAL MACT, MANDYA, AN AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1,16,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.
THESE MFAs COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
COMMON JUDGMENT MFA.No.9419/2015 and MFA.No.9420/2015 are arising out of common judgment and award dated 30-7-2015 in MVC.Nos.322/2011 & 325/2011 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge & Additional MACT, Mandya. Insurer is in appeal. With the consent of the learned counsel for the appellant, the matter is heard for admission and disposed off by this common order.
2. The claimants in both the MVCs filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation for the accidental injuries suffered by them in a road traffic accident. It is stated that on 14-1-2011, when the claimants were returning in Honda Activa bearing No.KA-11-S-9074, Auto bearing Reg.No.KA-11-A-1850 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from backside and dashed to the claimants’ motorcycle. Due to which, the claimants fell down and sustained grievous injuries. The claimant in MVC.No.322/2011 was aged about 68 years as on the date of accident and was retired high school head master and he was earning Rs.1,00,000/- per year from agricultural activities. The claimant in MVC.No.325/2011 was aged 50 years as on the date of accident and she was earning Rs.6,000/- per month by agricultural work and milk vending.
3. On issuance of notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared before the Tribunal but only respondent No.2- Insurer filed its statement of objections denying the claim petitions averment. Further, respondent No.2 contended that the driver of the offending Auto was not holding a valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident. It is also contended that the accident took place solely due to the negligence of the rider of the Honda Activa.
4. The claimants examined themselves as PWs-1 & 2 apart from marking documents Ex.P-1 to P-15. Respondent No.2 examined RW-1 and marked two documents Ex.R-1 & R-2.
5. The Tribunal on assessment of the entire material placed before it, awarded total compensation of Rs.1,16,000/- and Rs.20,000/- (global compensation) respectively to the claimants in both the MVCs with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit on the following heads:
IN MVC.No.322/2011 1. Towards pain and sufferings Amount in (Rs.) 30,000 2. Towards medical expenses 64,000 3. Towards attendant, conveyance and other 7,000
The contention raised by the insurer that the driver of Auto had no valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident is rejected. Aggrieved by the same, insurer is before this Court in this appeal.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the material placed on record.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the accident had taken place involving Honda Activa bearing No.KA-11-S-9074, Auto bearing Reg.No.KA-11-A- 1850. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel that the driver of the Auto had no valid and effective driving license to drive the transport vehicle but he had license to drive the LMV(non-transport). Therefore, he submits that the Tribunal committed an error in saddling the liability on insurer.
8. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the material on record, the only point which arises for consideration in the facts and circumstances of the case is as to whether the Tribunal is justified in rejecting the contention of the appellant that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving license to drive the Auto as on the date of accident. Answer to the said point is in the affirmative for the following reasons.
9. The accident occurred on 14-1-2011 involving Honda Activa bearing No.KA-11-S-9074, Auto bearing Reg.No.KA- 11-A-1850 and the accidental injuries suffered by the claimants are not in dispute in this appeal. The only contention urged is that the driver of the Auto had no valid and effective driving license to drive the transport vehicle as on the date of accident. It is an admitted fact that the driver of the Auto had LMV license to drive the non- transport vehicles but he had no endorsement to drive the transport vehicle. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.
LTD., reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663, has held that the driver who possesses driving license to drive light motor vehicle(non-transport) could also drive transport vehicle of light motor vehicle of the same category. In view of the said decision, the contention of the appellant would not merit any consideration. Following the said decision, appeals of the insurer are dismissed.
The amount in deposit be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE SMJ