IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR M.F.A.NO.1212 OF 2017 (MV-I) BETWEEN NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE MAHAVEER CHAMBERS, ASHOK NAGAR NIPPANI BELAGUM – 591 237 REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.
(BY SMT.H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SHRAVANA KUMAR @ SHRAVANA POOJARY S/O. SRINIVASA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS.
…APPELLANT R/O. GANGUMANE, KIRIMANJESHWARA VILLAGE KUNDPURA TALUK – 576 201.
UDUPI DISTRICT.
2. KARIM SABH S/O LATE GAIBU SABH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT BABA NAGAR BIJAPUR TALUK & DISTRICT – 586 101.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 R-1 SERVED) THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 21.09.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.514/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, KUNDAPURA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.2,30,570/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The respondents having been served, have remained unrepresented.
2. Having regard to the nature of controversy involved in the appeal, the matter is taken up for final hearing.
3. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 21.09.2016 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional M.A.C.T, Kundapura in M.V.C.No.514/2013 along with the claim petition and awarded a compensation of Rs.2,30,570/-
together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization .
4. Both counsel submit that the occurence of the accident and the coverage is not in dispute. The main ground on which the present appeal is preferred is that the insured vehicle was described as a light goods vehicle and the driver who was authorized to drive LMV non-transport vehicle was not authorized to drive a light goods vehicle which was involved in the accident. It is therefore, contended that in the absence of a valid driving licence, the appellant- insurance company cannot be held to be liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal, after consideration of the material on record, while answering issue No.3, came to the conclusion that the appellant had not adduced any evidence to show that the vehicle in question was a light goods vehicle. This finding is contrary to the material on record, i.e., ‘B’ Register extract which establishes that the vehicle in question was in fact registered as a light goods vehicle. However, the question is whether merely because the driver was holding a licence to drive a light motor vehicle, the Insurance Company can avoid its liability on the ground that the said licence to drive a light motor vehicle did not authorize him to drive a light goods vehicle. This question is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED reported in (2016) 4 SCC 298. At Paragraph 16.2, it is held as under:
16. To dilate further upon the issue, it is necessary to take note of other provisions of the Act. Public service vehicle, goods carriage, an educational institution bus and private service vehicle are included in transport vehicles. They are defined in Sections 2(35), 2(14), 2(11) and 2(33) respectively. The provisions are extracted hereunder:
“2. (35) “public service vehicle” means any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward, and includes a maxi-cab, a motor- cab, contract carriage, and stage carriage;”
“2. (14) “goods carriage” means any 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;”
“2. (11) “educational institution bus” means an omnibus, which is owned by a college, school or other educational institution and used solely for the purpose of transporting students or staff of the educational institution in connection with any of its activities;”
“2. (33) “private service vehicle” means a motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than six persons excluding the driver and ordinarily used by or on behalf of the owner of such vehicle for the purpose of carrying persons for, or in connection with, his trade or business otherwise than for hire or reward but does not include a motor vehicle used for public purposes;”
5. The Apex Court has categorically held that having regard to the intention of the legislature, motive and the object of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act which is a beneficial legislation, it could not be held that the Insurance Company was absolved of its liability to pay compensation on the ground that the driver who possessed a licence to drive light motor vehicle did not possess licence to drive a light goods vehicle. In this context, it is also relevant to note that the definition of light motor vehicle contained in Section 2(21) of the Motor vehicles Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in Sections 2(21), 2(15) and 2(48).
6. In the case on hand, the unladen weight of the vehicle in question was 2,450 kgs which is well within the upper limit of 7,500 kgs as prescribed in Section 2(21) of the Act. It has also been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of light motor vehicle by virtue of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1954. Consequently, the insurer cannot avoid its liability on the ground that the driver did not possess necessary licence.
7. Applying the law laid down in MUKUND DEWANGAN case to the facts of the instant case, the Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that merely because the driver possessed a licence to drive a light motor vehicle, the Insurance Company could not be absolved of its liability on the ground that the vehicle involved in question was a light goods vehicle.
8. It is also contended that the Tribunal committed an error in failing to consider and appreciate that the compensation of Rs.2,30,570/- was excessive inasmuch as there was contributory negligence on behalf of the claimants who were riding the bicycle involved in the accident. Even this contention is devoid of merit in view of the fact that since the persons involved in the accident were minors, the question of attributing contributory negligence to them would not arise in the facts and circumstances of the case.
9. It is also relevant to note that impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal has not been challenged on the ground that the quantum of compensation is excessive and improper. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any ground to interfere with the well-considered judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
10. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed.
The amount in deposit to be transmitted to the Tribunal, forthwith.
Sd/- JUDGE bnv*