Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 20594
- 1 -
MFA No. 4040 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 4041 of 2018
MFA No. 4042 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4040/2018 (MV)
CONNECTED WITH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4041/2018(MV)
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4042/2018 (MV)
IN MFA NO.4040/2018:
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD.,
VISHNUPRAKASH BUILDING,
3RD FLOOR, COURT ROAD,
UDUPI , NOW BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE,
2ND FLOOR, SHUBHARAM COMPLEX,
NO.144, M G ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B A RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
MR. VIJAYA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
S/O HENKRU POOJARY,
R/O BACHAPPU ,
SHIVA ANUGRAHA HOUSE,
HEBRI VILLAGE,
KARKALA - 5,
UDUPI DISTRICT.
2.
SRI. PRAVEEN
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
S/O RAMANNA POOJARY,
Digitally signed
by PAVITHRA B
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
MFA No. 4040 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 4041 of 2018
MFA No. 4042 of 2018
VIJAYALAKSHMI NIVASA,
CHARA VILLAGE AND POST,
KARKALA TALUK -5.
3.
SRI. VISHNUPRASAD
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
S/O RAMANNA POOJARY,
VIJAYALAKSHMI NIVASA,
CHARA VILLAGE AND POST,
KARKALA TALUK-5.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30/01/2018, PASSED IN MVC
NO.333/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
AMACT, KARKALA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.63,610/-
WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 8% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION.
IN MFA NO.4041/2018:
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD.,
VISHNUPRAKASH BUILDING,
3RD FLOOR, COURT ROAD,
UDUPI ,
NOW BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE,
2ND FLOOR, SHUBHARAM COMPLEX,
NO.144, M G ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001,
BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B A RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
- 3 -
MFA No. 4040 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 4041 of 2018
MFA No. 4042 of 2018
AND:
1.
MR. SHASHIDHAR
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
S/O RAMANNA POOJARY,
R/O MANJUSHREE NILAYA,
CHARA VILLAGE AND POST,
KARKALA TALUK - 5,
UDUPI DISTRICT.
2.
SRI. PRAVEEN
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
S/O RAMANNA POOJARY,
VIJAYALAKSHMI NIVASA,
CHARA VILLAGE AND POST,
KARKALA TALUK - 5.
3.
SRI. VISHNUPRASAD
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
S/O RAMANNA POOJARY,
VIJAYALAKSHMI NIVASA,
CHARA VILLAGE AND POST,
KARKALA TALUK -5.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30/01/2018, PASSED IN MVC
NO.334/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
AMACT.,
KARKALA,
AWARDING
COMPENSATION
OF
RS.1,42,210/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 8% P.A.,
FROM
THE
DATE
OF
PETITION
TILL
THE
DATE
OF
REALIZATION.
IN MFA NO.4042/2018:
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
NATIONALINSURANCE CO LTD.,
- 4 -
MFA No. 4040 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 4041 of 2018
MFA No. 4042 of 2018
VISHNUPRAKASH BUILDING,
3RD FLOOR, COURT ROAD,
UDUPI ,
NOW BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE,
2ND FLOOR, SHUBHARAM COMPLEX
NO.144, M G ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001,
BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B.A. RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
MR. SHALITHA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
D/O RAMANNA POOJARY,
W/O VIJAYA POOJARY,
R/O MANJUSHREE NILAYA,
CHARA VILLAGE AND POST,
KARKALA TALUK - 5.
2.
SRI. PRAVEEN
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
S/O RAMANNA POOJARY,
VIJAYALAKSHMI NIVASA,
CHARA VILLAGE AND POST,
KARKALA TALUK - 5.
3.
SRI.VISHNUPRASAD
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
S/O RAMANNA POOJARY,
VIJAYALAKSHMI NIVASA,
CHARA VILLAGE AND POST,
KARKALA TALUK - 5.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.01.2018 PASSED IN MVC
NO.335/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
- 5 -
MFA No. 4040 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 4041 of 2018
MFA No. 4042 of 2018
AMCT,
KARKALA,
AWARDING
COMPENSATION
OF
RS.1,68,120/- WITH INTEREST AT 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
A person holding a driving license to drive a light motor vehicle (non-transport) is also competent to drive a light motor vehicle (transport).
Headnote:
DRIVING LICENSE - LIGHT MOTOR VEHICLE - TRANSPORT VEHICLE - VALIDITY - [Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, AIR 2017 SC 3668] - The person who is holding the Driving License to drive the Light Motor Vehicle (non transport) is also competent to drive Light Motor Vehicle (transport).
Fact of the Case:
The appellant/Insurance Company challenged the judgments and awards passed by the Tribunal, in MVC No.333/2017, MVC No.334/2017 and MVC No.338/2017 respectively, arising out of the road traffic accident which occurred on 14.05.2015. The claimants were traveling as passengers in a Swift Desire Car bearing registration No.KA-20-C-9159 from Hebri Village towards Hassan and when the said car reached Bajagoli-Dharmasthala Road at Chende Basadi, Bajagoli, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver, the said car dashed to the Tipper bearing Registration No.KA-20-D-3420, due to which the claimants sustained simple as well as grievous injuries. Therefore, the claimants have filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The Tribunal has justified in awarding the compensation to the claimants fastening liability on the Insurance Company, but granted 8% rate of interest on the compensation awarded. The same is liable to be reduced to 6% per annum.
Issues: Whether the driver of the Swift Desire Car was holding valid and effective driving license as on the date of the accident.
Ratio Decidendi: The person holding driving license to drive Light Motor Vehicle (non-transport) is competent to drive LMV (transport) vehicle also, as per the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited.
Final Decision: The appeals are allowed in part. The judgments and awards dated 30.01.2018 passed in MVC No.333/2017, MVC No.334/2017 and MVC No.338/2017 by the Senior Civil Judge and AMACT, Karkala are hereby confirmed to the extent of awarded amount, but, modified, to the extent that the claimants are entitled for the interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
These appeals are filed by the appellant/Insurance
Company challenging the judgments and awards passed
by the Tribunal, in MVC No.333/2017, MVC No.334/2017
and MVC No.338/2017 respectively, arising out of the road
traffic accident which occurred on 14.05.2015.
Brief facts of the case are that on 14.05.2015,
at about 17.00 hours, the claimants were traveling as
passengers in a Swift Desire Car bearing registration
No.KA-20-C-9159 from Hebri Village towards Hassan and
when the said car reached Bajagoli-Dharmasthala Road at
Chende Basadi, Bajagoli, due to rash and negligent driving
of the driver, the said car dashed to the Tipper bearing
Registration No.KA-20-D-3420, due to which the claimants
sustained simple as well as grievous injuries. Therefore,
- 6 -
the claimants have filed the claim petition under Section
166
of
the
Indian
Motor
Vehicles
Act,
seeking
compensation.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-
Insurance Company and the respondents-claimants and
perused the records.
4.
Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance
Company submits that the driver of the Swift Desire Car
was not holding valid and effective driving license as on
the date of the accident. It is further argued that the
driver of the said car was having driving license to drive
Light Motor Vehicle (non-transport) vehicle and the vehicle
involved in the accident is Light Motor Vehicle (transport),
therefore submitted that the driver of the said car has
violated the policy conditions. Therefore contended that
the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the
compensation and prays to allow the appeals.
- 7 -
5.
Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants
submits that the judgments and awards passed by the
Tribunal is just and proper. The driver of the Swift Desire
car was having Driving License to drive the Light Motor
Vehicle. He further submits that the person holding driving
license to drive Light Motor Vehicle (non-transport) is
competent to drive LMV (transport) vehicle also, as per
the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental
Insurance Company Limited. Hence, prays to dismiss
the appeals filed by the Insurance Company.
6.
In the present case, the offending vehicle is a
Swift Car, which is LMV (transport) vehicle. The driver of
the vehicle was holding driving license for LMV (non-
transport), which is produced as per Ex.R2. Therefore, the
issue involved in the present case is no longer res-integra,
in view of the principles of law laid down in the decision of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan v.
Oriental Insurance Company Limited, reported in AIR
- 8 -
2017 SC 3668. Therefore, the person who is holding the
Driving License to drive the Light Motor Vehicle (non
transport) is also competent to drive Light Motor Vehicle
(transport). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Mukund Dewangan supra, has held 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 marriage, 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 tha
