IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ MFA NO.232 OF 2016 [MV] BETWEEN NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, OFFICE AT II FLOOR, INLAND ORNATE BUILDING, OPP TO HOTEL OCEAN PEARL KODIALBAIL, MANAGALORE. REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER REPRESENTED BY REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE BY ITS, REGIONAL MANAGER. ... APPELLANT (BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SATISH KUMAR SORAKE, S/O. LATE NARAYANA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O. ATTRVAL COMPOUND MATADAKANI, 4TH CROSS ROAD BOLLOR, MANGALORE.
2. RAMANATH S., S/O. LATE DOOMA SAPALYA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O. NEAR GORIGUDDE KALIKAMBA TEMPLE, UJJODI, KANAKANDADDY POST, MANGALORE-575 002. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY, ADV. FOR R1, R2 SERVED) THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.09.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.729/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE 4TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU, AWARDINDG COMPENSATION OF RS.50,073/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS DEPOSIT.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Though this appeal is listed for admission, the same is taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned counsel on both sides.
This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the liability fixed on it to pay compensation to the claimant – Respondent No.1, who sustained injuries in a road traffic accident.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant – Insurance Company and the learned counsel appearing for the claimant.
3. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.50,073/- with interest at 6% per annum on Rs.48,073/- (excluding Rs.2,000/- awarded towards future medical expenses) and directed the appellant herein to deposit the award amount.
4. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant – Insurance Company is that the vehicle involved is a passenger carrying auto rickshaw and the driver of the said vehicle was not holding a valid driving license and he was not authorized to drive the insured vehicle. The learned counsel would contend that the finding of the Tribunal that the auto rickshaw comes under the category of LMV and therefore, the driver possessed valid driving license does not stand to reason since the driver of the offending vehicle required to possess the driving license for the specified class of vehicle as provided under the M.V. Act and in the absence of a valid driving license, the Insurer cannot be held liable since there is violation of the conditions of the policy and accordingly the learned counsel seeks to set aside the impugned judgment and award passed by the tribunal fastening liability on the insurer of the vehicle.
5. the learned counsel for the claimant on the other hand justified the judgment and award passed by the tribunal and sought to dismiss the appeal.
6. The accident in question involving the auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-19-C-3662, which was insured with the appellant herein and the claimant sustaining injuries in the said accident is not in dispute.
7. Ex.R-2 is the driving license extract.
According to the said document, the driver of the offending vehicle had a driving license up to 11.09.2013. The accident has occurred on 14.08.2013. The driving license shows that the driver was authorized to drive LMV (Transport vehicle) with effect from 14.12.1975 and the same was being renewed from time to time.
8. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a driving license to drive a specific type of vehicle which was involved in the accident namely auto rickshaw and there is no endorsement in the said driving license to drive the type of vehicle. The said contention cannot be accepted in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in AIR 2017 SCC 663, wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court at para-46 of the judgment has held as under:
“Para 46 : 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 Rules of 1989, 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 section 10(2)(e) to (h) and our conclusion is fortified by the syllabus and rules which we have discussed. Thus we answer the questions which are referred to us thus:
(i) ‘Light motor vehicle’ as defined in section 2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in section 2(21) read with section 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act No.54/1994.
(ii) A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, ‘unladen weight’ of which does not exceed 7500 kg. and holder of a driving licence to drive class of “light motor vehicle” as provided in section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form.
(iii) The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act No.54/1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 while substituting clauses (e) to (h) of section 10(2) which contained “medium goods vehicle” in section 10(2)(e), medium passenger motor vehicle in section 10(2)(f), heavy goods vehicle in section 10(2)(g) and “heavy passenger motor vehicle” in section 10(2)(h) with expression ‘transport vehicle’ as substituted in section 10(2)(e) related only to the aforesaid substituted classes only. It does not exclude transport vehicle, from the purview of section 10(2)(d) and section 2(41) of the Act i.e. light motor vehicle.
(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.”
9. In view of the settled position of law, this appeal is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed.
The amount in deposit before this Court shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal.
snc Sd/- JUDGE