Allowed

Sri Narayanaswamy v. Sri Sudarshan

Karnataka HC23 Oct 2024MFA/2688/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Owner of a tanker lorry appealed against a Tribunal award that exonerated the insurer on the ground that the driver lacked the endorsement to drive vehicles carrying hazardous goods. The High Court found the driver held training and refresher course certificates satisfying Rule 9 CMVR and held the insurer liable.

What did the court decide?

Insurer held liable to pay compensation to claimants; deposits by owner to be refunded.

Sri Narayanaswamy Vs Sri Sudarshan — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:42765 MFA No. 2688 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 2740 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2688 OF 2020

¶8

C/W

¶9

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2740 OF 2020

¶10

IN MFA No. 2688/2020:

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

SRI NARAYANASWAMY

¶13

S/O. LATE. RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, PROP. VANAMAALA SERVCE CENTER, HULIKUNTE ROAD, KORATAGERE TOWN AND TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT 572129.

¶14

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY, SRI. DAYANANDA KN, S/O. NARAYANASWAMY, VANAMAALA SERVCE CENTER, HULIKUNTE ROAD, KORATAGERE TOWN AND TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT 572129

¶16

…APPELLANT

¶17

(BY SRI. RAMESH K R., ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

SRI SUDARSHAN S/O. NARAYANAPPA, R/AT RANGANATHAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI,

¶20

TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT 572101.

¶21

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:42765 MFA No. 2688 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 2740 of 2020

¶22

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD ISSUED OFFICE AT NELAMANAGALA, SERVICE ADDRESS, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD, JC ROAD, TUMKUR 572101, REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER

¶23

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK.N.NAYAK., ADVOCATE FOR R-2; R-1 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.01.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.733/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, TUMAKURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.2,10,000/WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶24

IN MFA NO. 2740/2020:

¶25

BETWEEN:

¶26

SRI NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, PROP VANAMAALA SERVICE CENTRE, HULIKUNTE ROAD, KORATAGERE TOWN AND TALUK, TUMKURU DIST 572129.

¶27

REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY SRI DAYANANDA K N, S/O NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, PROP VANAMAALA SERVICE CENTRE, HULIKUNTE ROAD, KORATAGERE TOWN AND TALUK, TUMKURU DIST 572129

¶28

...APPELLANT

¶29

(BY SRI. RAMESH K R., ADVOCATE)

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:42765 MFA No. 2688 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 2740 of 2020

¶31

AND:

¶32

SMT ALUMELAMMA W/O NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT RANGANATHAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DIST 572101.

¶33

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD. ISSUED OFFICE AT NELAMANGALA, SERVICE ADDRESS, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD. JC ROAD, TUMKUR REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER

¶34

...RESPONDENTS

¶35

(BY SRI. ASHOK.N.NAYAK., ADVOCATE FOR R-2; R-1 SERVED)

¶36

THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.01.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.726/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND M.A.C.T., TUMKUR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 70,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION.

¶37

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

¶38

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶39

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶40

In both these appeals, the owner of the tanker lorry

¶41

is aggrieved by the exoneration of liability of the Insurer by the Tribunal.

¶42

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:42765 MFA No. 2688 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 2740 of 2020

¶43

The Tribunal has recorded a finding that though the driver of the tanker lorry did possess a valid driving licence, he did not have the requisite endorsement to drive the transport vehicle carrying hazardous goods.

¶44

It is the case of the learned counsel for the owner that the driver of the tanker lorry did satisfy the requirement of the Rules for driving a tanker carrying hazardous goods. He submits that as per Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, the driver who transports dangerous or hazardous goods, in addition to being the holder of a driving licence to drive a transport vehicle, is required to have the ability to read and write at least one Indian language and is also required to possess a certificate for having successfully passed a course consisting the prescribed syllabus.

¶45

He points out that the owner had in fact produced Ex.R4, which is a certificate issued by the Ashok Leyland Driver Training Institute to the effect that the driver had attended and successfully completed the training course

¶46

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:42765 MFA No. 2688 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 2740 of 2020

¶47

on safe transportation of hazardous goods which was conducted from 07.03.2012 to 09.03.2012. He also submits that at the time of renewal of licence, as required under the Rules, the driver has attended one-day refresher training programme as evident from Ex.R5. He further submits that the driver had undergone second one-day refresher training programme conducted on 26.01.2014 and thus, the driver had satisfied all the requirement of Rules relating to driving of transport vehicle carrying hazardous goods.

¶48

On perusal of Exs.R4, R5 and R6, there can be no room for doubt that in addition to having a licence to drive the transport vehicle, which the driver admittedly possessed, he also possessed certificates indicating that he had completed a training course in relation to safe transportation of hazardous goods conducted by the manufacturer of Ashok Leyland and he had also undergone two 0ne-day refresher training programmes conducted by the Transport Department Officer’s Association. It is

¶49

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:42765 MFA No. 2688 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 2740 of 2020

¶50

therefore clear that the requirement of Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules i.e., having successfully passed a course consisting of the prescribed syllabus in relation to safe transportation of hazardous goods and the undertaking of a refresher course at the time of renewal of licence had both been satisfied. It is therefore clear that the owner of the driver of the tanker lorry was duly licenced to transport hazardous goods.

¶51

It may also be pertinent to state here that as against refusal of the Insurer to pay damages suffered by the tanker lorry, proceedings were initiated by the owner before the District Consumer Redressal Forum and ultimately an order was passed in favour of the owner by

¶52

the State Consumer Redressal Commission and the Insurer challenged the said order by filing a revision before the National Consumer Redressal Commission, which also has recorded a finding that as on the date of the accident, the driver was not only having a valid licence, but was also having a requisite endorsement to

¶53

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:42765 MFA No. 2688 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 2740 of 2020

¶54

safely drive the transport vehicle carrying hazardous goods.

¶55

In my view, in the light of the above, the findings of

¶56

the Tribunal that the driver of the tanker lorry did not possess the requisite endorsement with regard to the requirement of the Rules to drive the transport vehicle carrying hazardous goods cannot be accepted. Consequently, the appeals are allowed and it is held that the Insurer shall be liable for payment of compensation to the claimants.

¶57

The amount, if any, deposited by the owner shall be refunded to the owner of the tanker lorry.

¶58

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

¶59

PKS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47

Sri Narayanaswamy v. Sri Sudarshan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Narayanaswamy v. Sri Sudarshan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Mudlagiriyappa @ Mudalappa Vs Sri Kumaraswamy

Sri Govindaraju Vs Mr Shivaramegowda

Priyanka Vs Deepak

B Durugappa Vs U Anjanamurthy

Bikash Prasad @ Vikas Prasad Vs Mr Pushpak Jindal

Miss Varunya Vs the Manager