Allowed

Manjunath B v. the Divisional Manager

Karnataka HC2 Aug 2022MFA/4677/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Motor Accident Appeal filed by the vehicle owner against the Tribunal's award. It held that a driving licence for light motor vehicles (non-transport) permits driving transport vehicles under the Motor Vehicles Act. Consequently, the insurance company must indemnify the owner.

What did the court decide?

The judgment was modified to make the appellant and insurance company jointly and severally liable; the insurance company shall pay Rs. 1,59,000 with 6% interest; deposit to be transferred to Tribal C

Manjunath B Vs the Divisional Manager — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF AUGUST 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶5

MFA NO.4677 OF 2018 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MANJUNATH B S/O BASAVAIAH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/O ALLAPATNA VILLAGE ARAKERE HOBLI SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 570 014 ... APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI.SREENIVASAN M.Y., ADV.)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. 1ST FLOOR, RVR COMPLEX OPP. LIC OFFICE BEHIND KSRTC BUS STAND RAMANAGARAM - 562 159

¶11

MAS.K.PRASHANTHKUMAR S/O KRISHNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT DODDAPALYA VILLAGE ARAKERE HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 439

¶12

... RESPONDENTS

¶13

(BY SRI.ANVP SEETHARAM RAO, ADV. FOR SRI.B.C.SETHARAMA RAO, ADV., FOR R1; SRI. K.M.MALLESH, ADV. FOR R2)

¶14

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.02.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.631/2013, ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, SRIRANGAPATNA, AWARDING

¶15

¶16

COMPENSATION OF RS.1,59,000/- WITH INTEREST 9% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL PAYMENT OF THE ENTIRE AMOUNT.

¶17

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The appeal is filed by the owner of the offending vehicle challenging the judgment and award dated 05.02.2018 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Srirangapatna in MVC No.631/2013 insofar as it relates to fastening liability on the appellant/owner.

¶20

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

¶21

On 29.03.2013, at 9.00 a.m., when respondent no.2/claimant was proceeding in an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-10/K-6375 from Srirangapatna to Ganjam, near KSRTC bus stand circle, driver of the said autorickshaw drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and he lost control and the autorickshaw turned upside down. As a result, respondent no.2/claimant sustained injuries.

¶22

¶23

The claim petition was filed by respondent no.2/claimant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation. The Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.1,59,000/with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of the petition till date of payment. The appellant/owner of the vehicle is made liable to pay the compensation to respondent no.2/claimant. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred before this Court.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal had fastened the liability on the appellant/owner of the vehicle on the ground that the driver of the autorickshaw did not have driving licence to drive transport vehicle as there is no endorsement of transport vehicle in the driving licence. Therefore, the Tribunal opined that there is breach of terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, it has fastened liability on the owner of autorickshaw.

¶25

The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukund

¶26

¶27

Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited ((2017)14 SCC 663) which is squarely covered to the present case and prayed to fasten liability on respondent no.2-Insurance Company.

¶28

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.1-Insurance Company submitted that the driver of the autorickshaw was not holding driving licence to drive transport vehicle. Therefore, there is a violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, he submits that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in fastening the liability on the owner of the Autorickshaw is justified. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶29

It is an undisputed fact that the said autorickshaw is passenger autorickshaw which is a Light Motor Vehicle. Ex.R1 is 'B' register extract and Ex.R2 is DL of the appellant/owner who was driving the autorickshaw which shows that the appellant was having driving licence to drive light motor vehicle (non-transport). There is no endorsement of transport in the driving licence. On this ground alone, the Tribunal had fastened the liability on the

¶30

¶31

appellant/owner of the autorickshaw. But, this point is no more res integra in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan case. In the present case also, the passenger autorickshaw is light motor vehicle and the driving licence is also for light motor vehicle (non-transport). Therefore, if a driver is holding driving licence to drive any of the categories of a class of vehicle can drive vehicles of that particular class. No separate endorsement has to be obtained nor provided if the vehicle falls in any of the particular classes of vehicle as per Section 10(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The said aspect is discussed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mukund

¶32

Dewangan case. Hence, in the present case also, the autorickshaw is passenger autorickshaw and the driving licence to drive light motor vehicle (non-transport) is obtained to drive light motor vehicle transport vehicle also. Therefore, in this regard, there is no breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, the Tribunal has committed an error in fastening the liability on the appellant/owner of the autorickshaw. Therefore, respondent no.1-Insurance Company has to indemnify the owner of the

¶33

¶34

Autorickshaw since there is no dispute of the valid insurance as on the date and time of the accident. Hence, both the appellant and respondent no.1 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation but in view of the insurance policy, respondent no.1 shall indemnify the appellant and pay compensation. Accordingly, the judgment and award is modified to this extent. Hence, the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶35

The Tribunal has awarded interest @ 9% per annum but the same is modified to the extent of 6% per annum as the claimant is entitled to interest @ 6% per annum.

¶36

Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:

¶37

(i) The appeal is allowed;

¶38

(ii) The judgment and award dated 05.02.2018 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Srirangapatna in MVC No.631/2013 is modified to the extent that both the appellant and respondent no.1 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. In view of the Insurance policy, respondent

¶39

¶40

no.1-Insurance Company shall indemnify the appellant/owner and pay the compensation of Rs.1,59,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment;

¶41

(iii) The amount in deposit made by the appellant with this Court shall be transferred to the Tribunal along with a certified copy of this judgment forthwith;

¶42

(iv) The appellant is permitted to withdraw the amount deposited before the Tribunal;

¶43

(v) Draw award accordingly.

¶44

Sd/- JUDGE

¶45

hkh.

Manjunath B v. the Divisional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjunath B v. the Divisional Manager

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 Divisional Manager Vs Ashoka

The Divisional Manager Vs Gowramma

The Divisional Manager Vs Eshwar

Mr. Naveen Anjum Vs Sri Mahesh

Mr. Naveen S Vs the Managing Director

Sri Venkategowda Vs Sri Thirumala