A driving licence for light motor vehicles without a transport endorsement is valid for driving transport vehicles with a gross vehicle weight of less than 7500 kgs, making the insurer liable for compensation.

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102915 OF 2014 (MV)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER MACT, GADAG IN MVC NO.115/2008 DATED 09.07.2014, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

ORAL JUDGMENT

Challenging judgment and award dated 09.07.2014 passed by Principal District and Sessions Judge and Member, MACT, Gadag (‘Tribunal’ for short) in MVC no.11.02.2008, this appeal is filed.

Sri Santoshgouda L.Linganagoudar, Advocate for appellant submitted that appeal is by claimant for enhancement of compensation as well as challenging finding of Tribunal on liability. It was submitted, on 29.10.2007, when claimant was riding his motorcycle no.KA-26/K-989 on Konnur - Shirol road, driver of goods van no.KA-26/6020, drove it in rash and negligent manner and dashed against motorcycle causing accident. In accident, claimant sustained grievous injuries and despite treatment at Shreya Orthopedic and Trauma Centre at Hubli, did not recover fully and sustained loss of earning capacity. Therefore, he filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against owner and insurer of goods auto.

On contest wherein owner/insurer opposed claim petition on all grounds including denying negligence, violation of policy conditions and claim being excessive etc., Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. Claimant along with Dr.Mohan Babu Tukade deposed as PWs1 and 2 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P70. Insurer examined its official as RW1 and got marked Exhibits R1 and R2.

On consideration, Tribunal held accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of insured auto by its driver, auto had insurance coverage but as driver had driving licence to drive only LMV without transport endorsement owner was liable to pay compensation assessed by it at ₹2,23,050/-. Claim petition against insurer was dismissed. Dissatisfied with same, claimant was in appeal.

It was submitted, claimant was 29 years of age, doing agriculture and earning ₹2,00,000/- per annum. However, Tribunal considered his monthly income at only ₹3,000/- and awarded inadequate compensation. It was submitted, claimant sustained fracture of right femur, tibia, patella and dislocated fracture of right AC joint assessed by PW2 who have resulted in disability of 15%, Tribunal assessed loss of earning capacity at only 15% and awarded inadequate compensation. It was submitted, award of ₹45,000/- towards pain and suffering, award of ₹2,250/- when claimant was inpatient for 15 days was on lower side. Even award of ₹9,000/- towards laid up period was also on lower side. Likewise, award of ₹10,000/- only towards loss of amenities was on lower side and sought enhancement.

On liability, it was submitted that driver of offending vehicle was holding driving licence to drive light motor vehicle. Ex.R1 would indicate gross vehicle weight of Goods Auto was 975 kgs, which would be less than 7500 kgs and therefore, as per ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited , reported in AIR 2017 SC 3668, licence would be valid and insurer would require to be held liable. On said ground sought for allowing appeal.

On other hand, Sri GN Raichur, learned counsel for respondent - insurer opposed appeal. While unable to dispute legal position in view of decision in Mukund Dewangan’s case, learned counsel however opposed appeal on quantum and submitted that compensation awarded was just and proper and therefore, there was no scope for modification.

Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment, award and record.

From above, points that would arise for consideration are:

1. Whether Tribunal was justified in dismissing claim petition against insurer? and

2. Whethe