IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. L. NARAYANA SWAMY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.734 OF 2014 (MV) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.10530 OF 2013 IN M.F.A. NO.734 OF 2014 BETWEEN:
1. MALKIT KAUR W/O LATE GURUDEV SINGH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS 2. TEJPAL SINGH @ PRINCE S/O LATE GURUDEV SINGH AGED ABOUT 03 YEARS 9 MONTHS, 3. CHANDAN SINGH @ CHANAN SINGH S/O BAHADUR SINGH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS 4. KULWANT KAUR W/O CHANDAN SINGH @ CHANAN SINGH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS THE 2ND APPELLANT IS MINOR, HENCE REPTD. BY HIS MOTHER NAMELY MALKIT KAUR, ALL ARE R/AT NO.136, VEELA BAJJU VILLAGE & POST BATALA TALUK GURDASPUR DISTRICT PUNJAB STATE (BY SRI.SHRIPAD V.SHASTRI, ADV.) AND:
1. THE MANAGER ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.32, IST & 2ND FLOOR BALAJI SOVEREIGN BRIGADE ROAD BANGALORE – 560 025 2. M/S.SRI.DURGA PERFUMERY WORKS NO.121, PRITIVI BUILDING 5TH MAIN ROAD, CHAMARAJPET BANGALORE – 560 018 (BY SRI. O.MAHESH, ADV. FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH) ... APPELLANTS ... RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:24.9.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.7481/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDL. JUDGE & MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A.No.10530/2013 BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, NO.32, 1ST & 2ND FLOOR, BALAJI SOVEREGN, BRIGADE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 025.
BY ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE COMPANY LTD., SUBRAMANIAM BUILDING, II FLOOR NO.1, CLUB HOUSE ROAD, ANNSASALAI, CHENNAI - 600 002.
BY ITS MANAGER.
(BY SRI.O.MAHESH, ADV.) AND:
1. MALKIT KAUR AGED 28 YEARS, W/O LATE GURUDEV SINGH 2. TEJPAL SINGH @ PRINCE, MINOR, AGED ABOUT 01 YEAR 9 MONTHS S/O LATE GURUDEV SINGH 3. CHANDAN SINGH @ CHANAN SINGH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, S/O BAHADUR SINGH 4. KULWANT KAUR AGED 62 YEARS, W/O CHANDAN SINGH, @ CHANAN SINGH, RESPONDENT NO.2 IS MINOR, ... APPELLANT BY MOTHER/GUARDIAN 1ST RESPONDENT MALKIT KAUR ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.136, VEELA BAJJU VILLAGE & POST, BATALA TALUK, GURDASPUR DISTRICT, PUNJAB STATE – 400 014 5. M/S SRI.DURGA PERFUMERY WORKS, NO.121, PRITIVI BUILDING, 5TH MAIN ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE - 560 018.
BY ITS MANAGER ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SHRIPAD V SHASTRI, ADV. FOR R1, R3, R4; R2 IS MINOR REP. BY R1;
SRI.RANGANATH REDDY.R. ADV. FOR R5) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:24.09.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.7481/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE 16TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MACT, BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.39,81,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T These appeals are filed by the claimants as well as Insurance. MFA No.734 of 2014 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement in the compensation; and MFA No.10530 of 2013 is by the Insurance challenging the judgment and award of the Tribunal.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment and award. The appeal filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation is to be rejected for the reason that the enhancement sought is only for enhancement in few thousands which is impermissible; and we also do not find any good reason for enhancement of compensation. Accordingly the appeal filed by the claimants is rejected.
3. In the appeal filed by the Insurance the grounds for challenge are with regard to the negligence on the part of the deceased. In support of the same, the learned counsel referred exhibit P3 the sketch. The next ground taken is that the Driver of the vehicle was not possessing the valid and effective driving licence. Though the driver was having the driving licence to drive the light motor vehicle, but he was driving the transport vehicle for which there was no transport endorsement. Lastly, he submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the conventional heads is also on the higher side and hence seeks for modification of the award. With regard to the same, we have gone through the reasons assigned by the Tribunal. In respect of negligence, through the learned counsel referred Exhibit P3-sketch, but the same has not been confronted and though PWs1 and 2 have been examined, there was no suggestion with regard to the negligence. In that view of the matter, the reason assigned by the Tribunal is proper and the same cannot be found fault with. The said submission is liable to be rejected, accordingly rejected. The another ground that is taken is with regard to the transport endorsement. The very issue is covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED reported in 2016(4) SCC 298 and refers to the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraphs 43, 44 and 46 of the judgment wherein it is held that, 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. The same is extracted hereinbelow:
“43. 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 (supra) 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.
44. In Natwar Parikh & Co. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2005) 7 SCC 364, this Court was concerned with the taxation under the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 and question arose whether the tractor along with trailer for transporting goods was to constitute distinct category of goods carrier which requires permission under Section 2(14) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1957 and absence thereof would render it liable to tax under Section 3(2). This court held that the tractor when attached with the trailer carrying goods, would become a transport vehicle for the purpose of taxation. This Court has discussed the question thus:
"Section 2(28) is a comprehensive definition of the words "motor vehicle". Although a "trailer" is separately defined in Section 2(46) to mean any vehicle drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle, it is still included in the definition of the words "motor vehicle" under Section 2(28). Similarly, the word “tractor” is defined in Section 2(44) to mean a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry any load. Therefore, the words "motor vehicle" have been defined in the comprehensive sense by the legislature. Therefore, we have to read the words "motor vehicle" in the broadest possible sense keeping in mind that the Act has been enacted in order to keep control over motor vehicles, transport vehicles, etc. A combined reading of the aforestated definitions under Section 2, reproduced hereinabove, shows that the definition of "motor vehicle" includes any mechanically propelled vehicle apt for use upon roads irrespective of the source of power and it includes a trailer. Therefore, even though a trailer is drawn by a motor vehicle, it by itself is a motor vehicle, the tractor-trailer would constitute a "goods carriage" under Section 2(14) and consequently, a "transport vehicle" under Section 2(47). The test to be applied in such a case is whether the vehicle is proposed to be used for transporting goods from one place to another. When a vehicle is so altered or prepared that it becomes apt for use for transporting goods, it can be stated that it is adapted for the carriage of goods. Applying the above test, we are of the view that the tractor-trailer in the present case falls under Section 2(14) as a "goods carriage” and consequently, it falls under the definition of “transport vehicle” under Section 2(47) of the MV Act, 1988.”
There is no dispute with the aforesaid proposition, that tractor if drawing a trailer with goods would constitute goods carrier and consequently would be a transport vehicle. The aforesaid discussion was with respect to taxation and not with respect to the competence of driver holding light motor vehicle licence to drive the tractor attached with trailer/trolley carrying goods. The driver had the competence to drive such a vehicle, tractor with a trailer carrying goods being of light motor vehicle category transport vehicle which is the question involved in the instant case.
4. In the light of the discussions made, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, at paragraph 46(iv) of the judgment, held thus:
“46. (i) to (iii) xxx xxx xxx (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.”
In view of the same, the said ground also does not arise for consideration.
5. The next ground urged is with regard to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the conventional heads. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,45,000/- which is slightly on the higher side. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. PRANAY SETHI reported in 2017 SCC ONLINE 2170, the compensation under conventional heads all put together is restricted to Rs.70,000/-. Considering the fact that the claimants are parents, widow wife and two minor children, and also the fact even if it is to be reduced, the reduction would only be in a extent of few thousands and that itself is not a ground to interfere or reduce the compensation. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the Insurance is also liable to rejected, accordingly rejected. Amount in deposit is directed to be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE lnn Sd/- JUDGE