IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ MFA.No.2290 OF 2014 (MV) Between:
The Manager, Bajaj Allianz GIC Ltd., No.363, Sri. Hari Complex, Seethavilas Road, Mysore.
Rep. by its Legal Manager, M/s. Bajaj Allianz GID Ltd., No.31, 4th Floor, TBR Tower, New Mission Road, Bengaluru -560 024. …Appellant (By Sri. B. Pradeep, Advocate) And:
1. Sri. Denisha Y.S. 38 years S/o. Yathiraju, R/a Kudaragundi, Maddur Taluk, Mandya District -571 401.
2. Sri. Yellappa, So/ Govindappa Iragar, R/at Ugaragol, Sudatti Taluk, Belgaum District -590 001. ... Respondents (By R1-Service of notice is held sufficient as per the order dated 27.07.2018; R2 –served) This MFA filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act against the Judgment and award dated 27.11.2013 passed in MVC No.194/2011 on the file of Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Maddur awarding compensation of Rs.40,000/- with interest @6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.
This appeal coming on for orders this day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT Heard on I.A. No. 2/2014.
2. There is a delay of 2 days in filing the appeal.
For the reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying the application, delay of 2 days is condoned. I.A. No. 2/2014 is allowed.
3. This appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 27.11.2013 passed in MVC No.194/2011 wherein a total compensation of Rs.40,000/- was awarded to the injured/claimant–R1.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
5. The claim petition was filed seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident, which occurred on 13.03.2009. It is the case of the claimant that on 13.03.2009 at about 7.00 a.m. he along with his friend, was proceeding to Channapattana from Maddur, on Mysuru-Bengaluru Road in his motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-11/K-2070. he was riding the said motorcycle slowly and cautiously on the correct side of the road. When they reached Shivapura- Chamanahalli cross, one goods auto bearing registration No. KA-24-3826 driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner at a high speed, came from Mysuru side and dashed against their motorcycle because of which he sustained grievous injuries.
6. The tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.40,000/- with interest at 6% till realisation and held the owner and the insurance company jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the driver of goods auto-rikshaw was not holding a valid and effective driving license to drive that particular category of vehicle, which amounts to breach of policy terms and conditions and insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant as he was licensed to drive only LMV non-transport vehicle and therefore he submits the liability fastened on the insurance company is not proper.
8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., reported in AIR 2017 Supreme Court 3668 has held at para Nos. 45 and 46 as under:
“45. 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 maxicab, 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 private use as well as for carrying passengers for hire or reward. When a driver is authorised to drive a vehicle, he can drive it 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 the Amendment Act 54/1994.
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 28.03.2001. 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 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 of road- roller, the “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence 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 28.03.2001 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, form the purview of section 10(2)(d) and section 2(41) of the Act i.e., light motor vehicle.
(vi) 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.”
In view of the settled position of law, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. There is no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, it is dismissed. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the tribunal forthwith.
Sd/- JUDGE BVK