IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV M.F.A. No.750/2011(MV) Between:
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office, No.25, Shankaranarayana Building, M.G. Road, Bangalore – 560 001.
Now at 5th & 6th Floors, Hudson Circle, Krishibhavan, Bangalore – 560 001, Rep. by its Manager. ... Appellant (By Sri Janardhan Reddy, Advocate) And:
1. Sri Revanna, S/o Sri Shivappa, Aged about 27 years, R/at Mehapattanna, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Rural Taluk – 562 701.
2. Sri Manjunatha Rao, S/o Sri Narasinga Rao, Major, R/at No.18/A, 3rd Main, Medar Block, Jambu Bazar, Mysore – 570 001. ... Respondents (Notice to R-1 & R-2 are held sufficient v/o dated 04.07.2016) This MFA is filed under Section 30(1) of W.C. Act against the judgment dated 29.05.2009 passed in WCA:NFC:CR:No.9/2007 on the file of the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Sub-Division-6, Bangalore, awarding a compensation of Rs.2,35,948/- with interest @ 12% p.a.
This MFA coming on for final hearing, this day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT The appellant who is the insurer, has challenged the judgment and award dated 29.5.2009 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation in WCA.NFC.CR.No.9/2007 as regards imposition of liability on the insurer to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner, who is respondent No.1 herein. The only ground made out in the appeal is as to whether the liability to pay compensation as ordered by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation could be sustained in the light of the driver not possessing an effective and valid driving licence.
2. As per Section 30 of Motor Vehicles..Act an appeal lies on a substantial question of law. In this case, the appellant has stated that the question as to, “whether liability could be imposed when the driver possesses a driving licnece to drive a light motor vehicle but did not have appropriate endorsement to drive a transport vehicle as the lorry involved in the accident, was a transport vehicle?” is a question to be determined.
3. The Tribunal has recorded that the weight of the vehicle was 4250 kilograms in its order dated 30.11.2010..
4. In fact the laden weight as per RC Book at Ex.P.13 is 4150 Kilograms. In light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in 2017 SAR (Civil) 1008, the driving licence possessed by the driver to drive the light motor vehicle could be said to be sufficient if the weight of the vehicle is within the specified limit and in this case, as the weight of the vehicle i.e., being 4150 kilograms, is within the limit and hence once the un-laden weight is within the stipulated limit, no separate endorsement is required. Accordingly, the driving license possessed by the driver, copy of which is produced and marked as Ex.P.14 is sufficient to enable the petitioner to drive the vehicle in question.
5. Accordingly, no ground is made out to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra), no interference is called for on the grounds of imposition of liability on the insurer.
6. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE RS/* ct:mhp