IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. L. NARAYANA SWAMY ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MFA NO.3111 OF 2012 (MV) BETWEEN:
1. VARADARAJ M.N. S/O NARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS 2. CHINNA NARASAMMA @ CHINNARASAMMA W/O VARADARAJ M.N. AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT NO.46 MUKKODALU VILLAGE THATTAGUPPE POST UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE.
(BY SRI N.S. BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. VENKATESH REDDY S/O NARAYANA REDDY JANGAMANAHALLI VILLAGE BANGARPET TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT (R.C. OWNER-CUM-DRIVER OF APE AUTORICKSHAW BEARING REGN.NO.KA-08-4184) .. APPELLANTS 2. THE MANAGER TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 2ND FLOOR, JP & DEVI JAMBUKESHWAR ARCADE MILLERS ROAD BANGALORE – 560 052.
(INSURER OF APE AUTORICKSHAW BEARING REGN.NO.KA-08-4184) ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI P. RAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI A.N. KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2) ---
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.12.2011 PASSED IN MVC.NO.6387/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDGE, PRINCIPAL MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Learned counsel for the appellants has confined his submission only in respect of liability. The Tribunal has fixed the liability on the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle since he was holding licence only for driving light motor vehicle.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings.
3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited ([2017]14 SCC 663) has held that no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are extracted as under:
“60.1. “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 Sections 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act 54 of 1994.
60.2. 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 roadroller, “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 roadroller, 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 of 1994 and 28-3-2001 in the form.”
4. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case cited supra, it is the insurance company which is liable to pay the compensation and not the owner of the vehicle.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards love and affection. Considering the fact that the appellants have lost their minor child aged 3 years, it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs.10,000/- under the head ‘love and affection’. The compensation awarded under the other heads remain undisturbed.
6. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part by fastening the liability on the insurance company and enhancing the compensation by Rs.10,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest as awarded by the Tribunal. The insurer is directed to satisfy the award. The judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ca