Dismissed

The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Dastagir Bin Khemulsab Bepari

Karnataka HC11 Sept 2019MFA/101788/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a first appeal under Section 173(1) against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award, the insurer challenged the fastening of liability based on the driver lacking a transport endorsement. The High Court clarified that under Section 10(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, an LMV license permits driving transport vehicles below 7500 kg. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the Tribunal's awa

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the Insurer is dismissed. The judgment and award fastening liability on the Insurer is upheld. The amount in deposit is transmitted to the Tribunal.

The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Dastagir Bin… — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶5

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101788/2015 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT MADIWAL ARCADE, 1^ST FLOOR, HASMI MANZIL, CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI. NOW REPTD. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, 4^TH FLOOR, V.A. KALBURGI MANSION, LAMINGTON ROAD, OPP. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, HUBBALLI.

¶8

... APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. S K KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SRI.DASTAGIR BIN KHEMULSAB BEPARI, AGE:46 YEARS, OCC:SERVICE, R/O: H.NO. 130, ABDUL GALLI, NEW GANDHI NAGAR, BELAGAVI.

¶12

SRI.MAHADEV BIN KOMANNA MUDAGEKAR, AGE:MAJOR, OCC:SERVICE, R/O: KAMAT GALLI, BELAGAVI. DECEASED BY HIS LRS SMT.MADHAVI, W/O MAHADEV MUDAGEKAR, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O H.NO.2411, KAMAT GALLI, BELAGAVI

¶13

¶14

MISS. REKHA BIN MAHADEV MUDAGEKAR, AGE:19 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: H.NO. 2411, KAMAT GALLI, BELAGAVI.

¶15

KUM. GAJANAN BIN MAHADEV MUDAGEKAR, AGE:15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: H.NO. 2411, KAMAT GALLI, BELAGAVI.

¶16

(SINCE 4^TH RESPONDENT IS MINOR REPTD. BY RESPONDENT NO.2 – M/G.)

¶17

... RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 – SERVED; R3 – HELD SUFFICIENT; R4 – MINOR REPTD. BY R2)

¶19

¶20

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED:11.03.2015, PASSED IN MVC.NO.1212/2013, ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-IV, BELAGAVI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.1,40,700/ALONG WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS DEPOSIT.

¶21

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Though this appeal came up for admission,

¶25

with the consent of both the learned counsel, it is heard finally.

¶26

This appeal is filed by the Insurer assailing the judgment and award passed by the III Addl. District Judge , III Addl. District and Sessions Judge and MACT-IV, Belagavi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’, for short), in MVC No.1212/2013 dated 11.03.2015, fastening the liability on the Insurer.

¶27

Heard the arguments of both the

¶28

parties.

¶29

The ranks of the parties before the Tribunal is retained for brevity.

¶30

¶31

The claimant filed a petition under

¶32

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short), claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-, inter alia contending that on 23.02.2013 at about 18.30 hours, when he was proceeding as a pedestrian towards his house, when he came near Mujavar Khot, at that time, the driver of the Goods Vehicle bearing registration No.KA22/B-5338, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and by taking reverse direction dashed to the claimant, as a result, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and he was hospitalized and due to which he has suffered disability and has spent huge amount towards medical and other expenses. Hence he claimed compensation on various heads.

¶33

¶34

In pursuance to the notice, the legal

¶35

heirs of respondent No.1 appeared and filed objections by denying the averments made in the claim petition including the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle and also on the quantum of compensation claimed by the petitioner and contended that the vehicle was duly insured with the respondent No.2 – Insurer and if there is any liability, the same shall be fastened on the Insurer. The 2^nd respondent – Insurer also appeared through their counsel and filed statement of objection by taking the same contentions and by denying the rash and negligent driving, the accident in question and also the injuries sustained by the claimant as false. However, they admitted issuance of Insurance Policy and contended that the driver of the vehicle, did not have any valid and effective driving licence to drive the goods

¶36

¶37

vehicle and therefore, no liability can be

¶38

fastened on the Insurer and hence prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶39

Based upon the rival pleadings, the

¶40

Tribunal framed the following issues:

¶41

¢£ÁAPÀ 23.2.2013 gÀAzÀÄ 18.30 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ºÀPÉÆÌÃvÁÛAiÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ vÀ£Àß PÉ®¸À ªÀÄÄV¹PÉÆAqÀÄ £ÀÆå UÁA¢ü £ÀUÀgÀzÀ°ègÀÄªÀ vÀ£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ £ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §gÀÄwÛgÀÄªÁUÀ UÀÆqïì ªÁºÀ£À ¸ÀASÉå: PÉJ-22/©-5338gÀ ZÁ®PÀ£ÀÄ vÀ£Àß ªÁºÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß »ªÀÄÄäRªÁV ºÁUÀÆ CeÁUÀgÀÆPÀvÉ¬ÄAzÀ ªÀiÁ£ÀªÀ fÃªÀPÉÌ ºÁ¤AiÀiÁUÀÄªÀ jÃwAiÀÄ°è ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¹PÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ ºÀPÉÆÌÃvÁÛAiÀÄzÁgÀjUÉ rQÌ¥Àr¹zÀ ¥ÀjuÁªÀÄªÁV CªÀgÀÄ PÉ¼ÀPÉÌ ©zÀÄÝ wÃªÀæ ¸ÀégÀÆ¥ÀzÀ UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄAmÁzÀªÉAzÀÄ gÀÄdÄªÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄÃ?

¶42

1£ÉÃ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ rQÌ¥Àr¹zÀ ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2£ÉÃ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ «ªÀiÁzÁgÀgÁVzÀÄÝ, UÀÆqÀì ªÁºÀ£À ¸ÀASÉå: PÉJ022/©-5338gÀ ZÁ®PÀ£À vÀ¦à¤AzÀ¯ÉÃ C¥ÀWÁvÀªÁVzÀÄÝ, »ÃUÁV 2£ÉÃ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÉÃ 1£ÉÃ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁV CfðAiÀÄ°è PÉÆÃjgÀÄªÀAvÉ

¶43

¶44

¥ÀjºÁgÀ PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÁVzÉ JA§ÄzÁV

¶45

ºÀPÉÆÌÃvÁÛAiÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ gÀÄdÄªÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄÃ?

¶46

ºÀPÉÆÌÃvÁÛAiÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ gÀÆ.20,00,000/UÀ¼À ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ºÉÆAzÀ®Ä gÀÄdÄªÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄÃ?

¶47

2£ÉÃ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ UÀÆqÀì ªÁºÀ£À ¸ÀASÉå: PÉJ22/©-5338gÀ ZÁ®PÀ£ÀÄ ZÁ°ÛAiÀÄ°ègÀÄªÀ ªÁºÀ£À ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¸ÀÄªÀ ZÁ®£Á ¥ÀvÀæ ºÉÆA¢gÀÄªÀÅ¢®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ «ªÀiÁ µÀgÀvÀÄÛ G®èAX¹zÁÝ£É DzÀ PÁgÀt ¥ÀjºÁgÀ PÉÆqÀ®Ä vÁªÀÅ dªÁ¨ÁâgÀgÀ®è JAzÀÄ gÀÄdÄªÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄÃ?

¶48

1£ÉÃ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ UÁAiÀiÁ¼ÀÄ«ªÉÃ ªÁºÀ£ÀªÀÅ ¤zsÁ£ÀªÁV ZÀ°¸ÀÄwÛzÁÝUÀ KPÁKQ ¤®ðPÀëvÉ¬ÄAzÀ CqÀØ§AzÀÄ C¥ÀWÁvÀ¥Àr¹PÉÆArzÁÝ£É, ªÁºÀ£À ZÁ®PÀ£À ¤®ðPÀëvÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÀÄ E®è JA§ÄzÁV gÀÄdÄªÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÀÛgÉAiÉÄÃ?

¶49

¥ÀPÀëUÁgÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ºÉÆAzÀ®Ä CºÀðgÀÄ?

¶50

To substantiate their contention, the

¶51

claimant examined himself as PW1 and got

¶52

marked 16 documents. On behalf of the respondents, 2^nd respondent examined RW1 and

¶53

marked four documents. After considering the

¶54

¶55

evidence on record, the Tribunal answered

¶56

issues No.1 and 2 in the affirmative, issue No.3 in partly affirmative and issues No.4 and 5 in the negative and awarded compensation of Rs.1,40,700/- with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till deposit, fastened the liability on the 1^st and 2^nd respondent jointly and severally.

¶57

Assailing the judgment and award, the Insurer preferred this appeal, only on ground of fastening the liability on the Insurer.

¶58

The counsel for the Insurer/appellant

¶59

contended that the driver of the vehicle was holding licence to drive only LMV i.e., light carrier vehicle, but he does not hold driving licence for driving Tata 407 vehicle, which is a goods vehicle, which requires the transport endorsement. Therefore, fastening of liability on

¶60

¶61

the Insurer cannot be correct on the part of the Tribunal. However, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in recent judgment in Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663 , it is clarified that the driver, who is having LMV (NT) is also entitled to drive the LMV transport vehicle without obtaining any separate transport endorsement in view of the amendment to Section 10(2) of the Act, w.e.f. 14.11.1994. The Hon’ble Apex Court clearly held that the person who is having LMV (NT) driving licence is entitled to drive LMV transport vehicle and no transport endorsement is required for the vehicle which does not exceed unladen weight of 7500 kgs.

¶62

In the instant case, the unladen weight of the vehicle in question is 5000 kg,

¶63

¶64

which is within the permissible limit of

¶65

7500 kg. Hence, the Tribunal rightly fastened the liability on the Insurer. Hence, the judgment and award fastening the liability on the Insurer does not call for interference. In view of the same, I pass the following order:

¶66

ORDER

¶67

The appeal filed by the Insurer is hereby dismissed.

¶68

Send the copy of the order forthwith. The amount in deposit be transmitted to the Tribunal.

¶69

Sd/JUDGE

¶70

gab

The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Dastagir Bin Khemulsab Bepari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Dastagir Bin Khemulsab Bepari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Land Acquisition Officer Vs Ningappa S/O Shiddappa Kuri

Bhimappa S/O Bhimappa Babani Vs Umesh C Maradimath

Miyasab S/O Ibrahimsab Kadiwal Vs Smt.Janatabi W/O Miyasab Kadiwal

Smt.Shweta W/O. Manjunath Shanubhogar Vs Shri.Manjunath S/O. Parasanagouda Shanubhogar

Bharati Axa General Insurance Vs Abdul Razak S/O. Honnursab Koppal

Hajilal@ Ijilal Vs Ilyas Ahmed