IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.NO. 3189 OF 2015 (MV) BETWEEN:
National Insurance Company Ltd., By its Udupi Branch Manager, Shankar Building, Opp: Masjid, Masjid Road, Udupi, Now represented by its Regional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office, Subharam Complex, 144, MG Road, Bengaluru-560 001 ... Appellant (By Sri.A.N.Krishnaswamy, Advocate) AND:
1. Sanjeeva Purusha S/o Shankara Purusha, Now aged about 57 years, R/a Salmara House, Durga Nagara, Shankarapura Post, Udupi Taluk & District.
2. Shivananda S/o Muddu Poojary, Now aged about 33 years, R/a Seetha Nivas, Near Hosamarigudi, Kaup, Udupi Taluk & District.
3. Laxmikantha Nayak S/o. Shashidhara Nayak, Now aged about 35 years, R/o Venkataramana Temple, Uliyaragoli Kaup, Udupi Taluk & District ... Respondents (By Sri V.S.Hegde, Advocate for R.1; R.2 served, unrepresented) This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act against the Judgment and Award dated 22.01.2015 passed in MVC No.848/2010 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Udupi, awarding a compensation of Rs.2,30,050/- with interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization.
This MFA coming on for orders, this day, the court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT The appellant-insurer is before this Court challenging the judgment and award dated 22.01.2015 in M.V.C.No.848/2010 by which compensation of Rs.2,30,050/- is awarded to the claimant.
2. The Insurance Company is before this Court assailing the judgment on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle had no driving licence to drive the transport vehicle. The accident which took place on 21.05.2010 and the injury suffered by the claimant is not in dispute. The trial Court based on material on record awarded compensation of Rs.2,30,050/-. The driver of the offending vehicle had LMV licence but had no endorsement to drive the transport vehicle. The appellant is before this Court only urging the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle had no licence to drive the transport vehicle even though he had LMV licence.
2. The said contention of the Insurance Company is no more res integra in view of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663, paragraphs 55, 58 and 59 reads as follows:-
“55. Sections 10(2)(a) to (j) lay 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.
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 maxi cab, 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 a private use as well as for carrying passengers for hire or reward. When a driver is authorised to drive a vehicle, he can drive 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 Amendment Act 54 of 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.”
In view of the principles laid down in the above said decision, the appeal is dismissed.
The amount in deposit to be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal.
I.A.No.1/2019 is dismissed as not pressed.
Sd/- JUDGE SJK